REVIEWS 765 move Soviet Jews to the Crimean steppe and his preference for shifting local Crimean Tatars there instead (p. 82), backed up by ‘“the gradual repartition of Crimean Turks from abroad”’ (p. 79, quoting Edige Kirimal). The third major claim is that, despite this new-found unity, ‘Crimean Tatars are still aware of their original sub ethnic-geographic origins and all can tell you whether they are a Yaila Tat, Yaliboyu Tat or Nogai, their contemporary identities are more profoundly shaped by their exile experiences. Those who lived in Tashkent, for example, consider themselves to be cosmopolitan and talk of this great Central Asian city’s restaurants, efficient subway system, museums and so forth. Those from Samarkand have a certain nostalgia for that city’s chaihanas (traditional tea shops), and longing for the soil which grew “Uzbekistan’s best grapes”’ (p. 150). The Russian occupying authorities have sought to play divide-and-rule; but there is little evidence to date that they have been able to exploit these underlying divisions. The leaders of the mainstream Mejlis have been exiled to ‘continental’ Ukraine. Pro-Russian groups like Qirim (‘Crimea’) and Qirim Birligi (‘Crimea Union’) seem largely to have been created by money, political technology and pressure on vulnerable groups like the few surviving Crimean Tatar businesses to conform. Kyiv has belatedly recognized both the Mejlis and the Crimean Tatars’ ‘rooted’ status after years of relative neglect. The seventieth anniversary of the Deportation in May 2014 was a mooted affair. The troubled history of the Crimean Tatars continues. UCL SSEES Andrew Wilson Clark, Roland. Holy Legionary Youth: Fascist Activism in Interwar Romania. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY and London, 2015. xiii + 271 pp. Illustrations. Tables. Notes. Bibliography. Index. $39.95. This book is a welcome addition to the works available in the English language on the history of the Romanian Legionary movement, which is generally regarded as the third most popular fascist movement in interwar Europe. In writing this volume, Roland Clark has undertaken exhaustive research in the Romanian National Archives, as well as those of the Securitate. In addition, Clark has drawn on published primary sources, legionary memoirs and the many newspapers and periodicals produced by the movement and its sympathizers. The volume spans the time period from the early 1920s, positioning the Legion’s origins in the ‘communities of violence’ created by the antisemitic student movement, through to the movement in exile in Western Europe and South America in the 1960s. SEER, 94, 4, October 2016 766 The most detailed section of the book, however, covers the heyday of the movement in the mid-to-late 1930s when the Legion under Codreanu moved away from its stress on antisemitic hooliganism towards pursuing ostensibly more peaceful, and educational, methods to build up the movement. This was the era of the Legionary work camps, cooperatives and restaurants, the expansion of the membership and the propaganda campaigns in towns and countryside which led to the Legion achieving third place in the 1937 elections. It was also the era which saw many Romanian intellectuals (and visual artists) becoming legionaries or open sympathizers. Chapter five on ‘The Power of Print’ is particularly illuminating in this respect. As well as producing numerous books, pamphlets, newspapers and periodicals, to which many leading intellectuals contributed, the Legion also became adept at producing legionary calendars, posters and postcards with which they could expand awareness of the movement amongst the general public. Writings by, and images of, Codreanu and the two legionary ‘martyrs’ Ion Moţa and Vasile Marin, were significant in this regard. Clark also explores the links between the Legion and the Orthodox priesthood which closely identified with the Christian concepts of sacrifice and salvation expounded by the Legion. The Spanish Civil War gave the legionaries an opportunity to put these ideals into practise. The death of Ion Moţa and Vasile Marin in the Spanish Civil War fighting on the nationalist side, and their grandiose reburial in Bucharest in 1937, provided the movement with the opportunity to portray itself as the protector of the church and the nation against both Communism and mainstream Romanian politicians which the Legion regarded as corrupt and in cahoots with the...
Read full abstract