Poll: Citizens condemn the Legionary Movement, but are divided on Ion Antonescu

59% of Romanians believe that the Legionary Movement was a criminal organization, 17% reject this statement, and the rest do not have a firm answer, shows the poll conducted by Avangarde between August 19-24, 2025 on a sample of 1,100 adults, with a margin of error of ±3%. The poll also reveals that 35% of respondents see Marshal Ion Antonescu as a war criminal, 29% consider him a national hero, and 36% do not know or prefer not to speak,

The results of this poll bring back to the attention of public opinion a difficult and controversial topic: the way Romanians relate to their recent past and to historical figures who marked the history of the 20th century through violence, extremism and war crimes. The data is clear and, at the same time, disturbing. The figures capture not only a fragmented perception, but also the deep tensions that still plague Romanian society when it comes to assuming its own past.

Beyond the percentages, these results must be read through the prism of documented historical facts. The Legionary Movement was a fascist, ultranationalist and anti-Semitic organization, responsible for political assassinations and pogroms, such as the one in January 1941 in Bucharest, when hundreds of Jews were killed with indescribable cruelty, synagogues were burned, and the extreme violence irreversibly marked the collective memory. Historians and post-war legislation have classified the Legionary Movement as criminal, and this fact is no longer disputed in the academic world. That is why the percentage of 17% who reject this reality shows either a lack of historical knowledge, a persistence of dangerous myths, or the influence of recent public discourses that have attempted to rehabilitate compromised symbols.

However, the figure of Marshal Ion Antonescu represents the greatest flaw in perception. Convicted and executed in 1946 for war crimes, Antonescu led Romania in alliance with Nazi Germany, ordered massive deportations, and was responsible for the Holocaust in Romania, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of Jews and Roma were exterminated or left to die in the deportations from Transnistria. Historical documents are clear and unanimous in confirming this reality, and his responsibility is undeniable. And yet, almost a third of Romanians consider him a hero, which proves that collective memory has remained trapped between myths and reality, between nostalgia for a leader perceived as "firm” and the refusal to assume the truth of the historical crime.

The context of the last year undoubtedly plays a role in these results. Călin Georgescu's pro-legionary and pro-Ion Antonescu statements, anti-Semitic outbursts and Diana Şoşoacă's apologies in favor of Antonescu and the Legionary Movement have brought toxic themes back into the public space, which public opinion has received in different ways. Some were outraged and reacted firmly, consolidating the percentage of those who condemn the Legionary Movement and recognize Antonescu as a war criminal, but others saw in these marginal voices a confirmation of their own prejudices or a sign that the "forbidden truth” deserves to be put back on the table. The Avangarde poll cannot be separated from this tense media and political climate, which fuels polarization.

However, the poll data published yesterday leaves room for important questions. Detailed breakdowns that would show whether these perceptions are influenced by age, education or region are missing. We do not know whether pro-Antonescu nostalgia is stronger in older generations or whether the lack of information affects the young more. We also do not know whether the answers come from ideological conviction or ignorance. A more complex survey could have added questions that would test the level of historical knowledge, in order to separate the opinion based on facts from the opinion based on cliches or propaganda. At the same time, the comparison with similar data from previous years would have shown whether we are witnessing a dangerous evolution or a stabilization of perceptions.

What is clear, however, is that Romania is still struggling with its own memory. Acceptance of the criminal character of the Legionary Movement seems to have gained ground, but there is still a core that refuses reality. In the case of Antonescu, the rupture is much more visible, almost halfway, and this shows how deeply the myth of the "strong leader” who would have defended the national interest has become entrenched, even if the price was the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. This tension between myth and reality, between heroization and condemnation, shows a society that has not yet completed the process of assuming the past.