Why did Hitler support Antonescu instead of the Iron Guard during their coup ?

[Volksgenosse]

I have seen some people claiming that Hitler betrayed his Ideology because he did not support the Romanian Iron Guard during their coup attempt against Ion Antonescu. Instead, the Germans supported the latter. Why did that happen ?

I would like to note though that the Germans gave shelter to Horia Sima and other legionaries and did not extradite them to Antonescu.

[Otium]

Hitler didn't "betray" his "ideology" by any means, he was being practical (Realpolitik):

These aims of a Hitlerian Realpolitik superseded his ideological preferences. All over Europe (for example, in Holland, Denmark, France, Romania, and in a few remarkable instances even in Austria), local National Socialist leaders were abashed when they found that Hitler did not support them and paid them hardly any interest at all.

He preferred to work with the established pro-German governments of such provinces and states. The most telling example of this occurred in Romania in January 1941. There the National Socialist and populist Iron Guard (whose anti-Semitic ideology and practices were perhaps the most fanatic and radical in all Europe) got into conflict with the nationalist and military government of General Antonescu, whom Hitler respected and liked. When in January 1941 fighting broke out between the Antonescu and Iron Guard forces, the Germans unequivocally supported the former at the expense of the latter, on occasion with German armor and tanks.

Of course he had his reasons. While the war lasted, he needed order in the countries that were his allies or satellites—a kind of stability that must not be endangered by revolutionary experiments, and that assured undisrupted deliveries of necessary material supplies to the Reich. Thus he put up for a long time with allied chiefs of state— a Pétain, an Antonescu, Regent Horthy of Hungary, King Boris of Bulgaria—some of whom he knew were not wholly loyal or unconditional adherents of a National Socialist Germany.

John Lukacs, The Hitler of History (New York: Vintage Books, 1998), Pp. 162.

You could probably find more on this which elucidates Hitler's intentions and motives in more detail. But I think it serves its purpose to point out that Hitler was primarily interested in practicality, rather than attempting to appease various National Socialist groups from other countries whom he wasn't really obligated to give legitimacy, although it would have been nice, particularly from a 21st century perspective. A historical show of unity among comrades is always inspiring.

One cannot say that Hitler "betrayed" National Socialism because he didn't support all of these groups. Hitler nonetheless still upheld German National Socialism and could hardly have been seen as rejecting his own conception of it. Such a claim makes no sense.