During the pre-war years, harassment was rife and had been to some extent since the arrival of the gypsies in Europe in the 11th Century. Prejudice and racist ideologies were in place before the outbreak of war, with regulations enforced to prevent the ‘gypsy lifestyle’, including immobilisation and the introduction of gypsy camps (Lewy 2000:15). They were accused of being a primitive race and a burden on welfare and the general population, their dark complexion making them an easy target, ‘The Roma and Sinti minority were viewed by the police as a homogenous group of non-Caucasian vagabonds, asocials and criminals’ (Milton 2001:213). In 1935 the government began to collect comprehensive registration details providing eugenic information on all gypsies, which later became useful in their deportations.
In 1939 the Nazi’s began to use their newly seized territories as dumping grounds for their undesired people. The gypsies were immobilised and were under threat of being sent to concentration camps. In 1940 deportations occurred to the Eastern lands as part of a scheme to deport all gypsies by the end of the year, however due to difficulties only 2500 made the journey (Lewy 2000:76). In the same year, orders were made to begin the process of gypsy sterilisation. Gypsies were made social outcasts within all levels of social life, and Nazi forces mercilessly killed gypsies they came across in new territories.
The persecution of the gypsies stepped up a level post-1942, with mass deportations of gypsies to camps at Auschwitz beginning because deportation was not ‘efficient’ enough (ibid: 135). Pure blood gypsies, who previously underwent the worst discrimination managed to avoid deportation and death, under Himmler’s orders who believed pure-bloody gypsies to be of Aryan descent. Many gypsies were exempt but the selection process appears to have been quite sporadic and in some communities the authorities wanted to get rid of as many gypsies as possible (ibid: 144). Most German people cared very little for the fate of the gypsies, especially after the years of stigma that were associated with them.
Their existence at Auschwitz and other concentration raises issues regarding the question of whether the gypsies were subject to genocide in the same way as Jews were. On their arrival, they were not to be exterminated but instead placed in ‘superior’ family camps. There was however inadequate nourishment and sanitary conditions, meaning that the majority of gypsies would die indirectly from disease and maltreatment and thousands of gypsies were still sent to the gas chambers. Lewy would claim that this was for practical, and not premeditated reasons, for example containing the spread of typhus, and making room for the incoming Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz, ‘if a program of annihilation had been in effect, why wait for over one year to murder them?’ (Lewy 200:165). Even in camps other than Auschwitz life expectancy was only one or two years, if that. The creed adopted by the guards was ‘extermination by work’.
On the other hand, Lewy talks about thousands of undocumented gypsies arriving at extermination camps and being sent to death, before their presence was even recorded, proving a clear intention. Milton (2001) refers to evidence suggesting that Hitler was actually directly involved and informed of the killing operations, suggesting that the killings were indeed premeditated. There will always be evidence suggesting overall intention to kill the gypsies, and this evidence will further add to the debate over defining the gypsy situation.
Zimmerman (2000) would argue that the gypsies were not subjected to genocide due to a lack of premeditated intent from governing forces. The original purpose of the gypsy persecution was to impose a certain lifestyle upon those that did not fit within the Nazi ideologies, and remove those that would not comply from the general German population, but not to exterminate the race. Local state and police officials emphasised asocial behaviour as the reason for persecution, and evidence of this is further demonstrated by the treatment of the Jenische (the white gypsies), who irrespective of racial affiliation were categorised in the same way due to their social nuisance (ibid: 219). Zimmerman agreed that the murder of many gypsies evolved due to circumstance. The mass killings of those unfit to work at Auschwitz for example was due to the overcrowding resulting from the masses of incoming Hungarian Jews, and at this point in the war, mass murder had become a common solution to problems such as this.
Lewy estimates that between 5000 and 15000 gypsies were exempt from deportation and remained in the Reich, the latter figure would suggest more gypsies were exempt than were deported. Some were exempt because they were racially pure, and others because of social adjustment or meritorious military service. Gypsies considered to be socially adjusted were those with a regular job and permanent residence before the gypsy count in 1939 and no criminal record. The huge numbers of exemptions and little evidence of initial intent suggests that the mass killings were developed as the situation of war progressed, rather than a premeditated genocide, meaning the gypsy situation does not fit within the UN convention definition which requires ‘intent’. The gypsy race was not annihilated in the same ruthless way as the Jewish race during the war years.
In the same way that we can use the UN convention definition of to prove that the gypsies were not subject to genocide, we can also look at its faults and imprecision to prove that they were. One part of the definition, with which the persecution fits precisely, considers the imposition of measures to prevent births. The gypsies were subject to enforced sterilisations, under threat of being deported to Auschwitz. These forced sterilisations preventing gypsies from procreating were forcefully carried out with the intention of halting a bloodline. Had Germany won the war, these sterilisations would have continued, achieving the goal of wiping out future generations.
It is indisputable that the Nazi’s intended to conduct ‘cultural genocide’ on the gypsies way of life, but cultural genocide does not call for UN intervention or the status of ‘genocide’. Lempkin actually believed that the destruction of a group of people’s values, history and general way of life, even if not physical could constitute genocide. The debate however concluded that cultural genocide should be excluded from the convention and approached through human rights instead (Lewy). Whether or not one agrees with this exclusion depends on what type of definition of genocide is adopted. Perhaps, different types of genocide should be defined separately and given different sub-status. This is more viable than broadening the UN definition as Lempkin would have liked. Broadening the definition by the UN to include cultural genocide would de-value the uniqueness of some of the worst mass-murders in history, as well as creating further issues regarding intervention and inclusion.
Creating definitions for different categories of genocide would be the most realistic option, and would eradicate problems of comparing very different genocidal acts against one another, especially when they differ in size. The UN definition sates destruction in whole or ‘in part’, but how to define what constitutes ‘a part’ is a never-ending path. The gypsies for example were indeed subject to genocide ‘in part’, but the Nazi’s did not try to exterminate the race in totality as they did with the Jews. Kuper would consider the destruction of Lidice and Ležáky as reprisal for the assassination of German officials in the war as ‘genocidal massacre’ (1981:32). Using this example, Kuper would consider the slaughter of the gypsies as genocidal massacre as well. Their killings may not have been part an original plan, but there was the intent to destroy on the basis of race, through killings, sterilisations, removal of children, removal of culture and other acts which would count as genocidal.
One of the major issues in delegating the definition of ‘genocide’ to the gypsies is their comparison with the Jews. What makes the Jewish genocide more unique was the Nazi’s agenda to annihilate of every man, woman and child. Not all victims of the Nazi’s were Jews, and the killing of other people such as the gypsies, asocials and political opponents are horrifying, however the mechanical extermination of the Jews deserves its own designation. Gypsies are largely overlooked when we regard WW2, despite their massive losses and what the surviving gypsies have had to come to terms with. Katz (2009) believes that the term ‘genocide’ should be saved for mass-murders, which target a whole group, entirely and intentionally. This definition, along with any definition that is proposed still has its problems and ambiguity, terms like ‘intent’ cannot be disproven and Thompson and Quets (1987) suggest simply eliminating intent as a criterion. Fein (1990) praises the term ethnocide, which is most commonly used now to describe the deliberate destruction of a culture without physical destruction of the members. Fein’s example demonstrates how different terminology can over come the ambiguity of using such a large umbrella term such as ‘genocide’ for the destruction on such different scales. It is also important to take into account the destruction of non-fixed groups such as social, political and class groups. Had this been taken into account, the Soviet mass murders may have been taken into greater consideration on an international level.
I believe that the term genocide must be re-defined, or split into sub-categories to recognise different levels of genocide and to make the application of the term less ambiguous. Perhaps the term genocide should be saved for the largest scale ethnic murders, those that have left little of no trace of the race behind. The problem with saving the legal definition for the ‘worst’ genocides is that they can only be considered post-event, when intervention is largely too late.
The gypsy persecution during 1939-1945 is considered by some to lack ‘intent’ and scale, especially when larger mass killings do not count as genocide in the eyes of the law. I believe however that the gypsy persecution does count as genocide, even using the UN definition. They were caused bodily and mental harm, they were destroyed in part, and attempts were made to prevent their procreation. What happened to the gypsies during WW2 was horrific, and should be recognised using a clearer definition. The UNGC is only the first step in promoting international consciousness of the denial of human rights across the world.
Reference:
Fain, H. (1990) ‘Social Recognition and Crimilization of Genocide’ Current Sociology 38: pp1-7
Katz, D. (2009) ‘on three definitions: Genocide, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Obfuscation’ in Donskis, L. ‘A Litmus Test Case of Modernity. Examining Modern Sensibilities and the Public Domain in the Baltic States at the Turn of the Century’. Interdisciplinary Studies on Central and Eastern Europe 5: pp. 259-277
Kuper, L. (1981) ‘Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century’. New York and London: Penguin
Lempkin, R. (1944) ‘Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation. Analysis of Government. Proposals for Redress’ Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Lewy, G. (2000) ‘The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies’ Oxford: Oxford University Press
Milton, S. (2001) ‘Gypsies as social outsiders in Nazi Germany’ pp.212-232 in Gellately, R. and Stolzfus, N. (eds.) Social Outsiders in Nazi Germany Princeton University Press
Thompson, J and Quets, G. (1987) ‘Redefining the Moral Order: Towards a Normative Theory of Genocide’ New York: Columbia University
Zimmermann, M. (2000) ‘The National Socialist "Solution of the Gypsy Question," pp. 186-209 in Herbert, U. (ed.) ‘National Socialist Extermination Policies: Contemporary German Perspectives and Controversies’ New York: Berghahn Books
by
jesshv (student)
