Nearly every country in europe has at one time or another over the centuries promulgated laws restricting or expelling Gypsy populations. In 1528, Martin Luther referred to Gypsies as “fake friars, wandering Jews and rogues” in his Book of Vagabonds. In Rumania, Gypsies were enslaved. In 1471, Lucerne was the first locality to craft anti-Gypsy laws. Lucerne was followed by Brandenburg, Spain, Germany, Holland, Portugal, England, Denmark, France, Flanders, Scotland, Bohemia, Poland/Lithuania and Sweden. Possibly the first concentration camps for Gypsies were created in the late 19th century in England in the New Forest region. Thus the legal concern for the presence of Gypsy populations in Europe was well developed long before the Nazi Party came into power in Germany in the 1930s. But why were German leaders of Hitler’s era, in particular, so interested in monitoring their Gypsy population?

By John Tiffany

Arguments among scholars about the “uniqueness” of the alleged World War II “holocaust” are widespread, ranging from those who feel the holocaust was specifically Jewish, to those who feel that all victims equally played a part. Among these alleged victims were the Gypsies. Wandering the country in their caravans, making their living as musicians, pedlars, thieves, swindlers, pickpockets, rapists and fortune-tellers, the Rromas and Sintis (together known as Gypsies) and their criminal, parasitic, drifting way of life constituted an affront to German National Socialist ideals of social order and hard work.

Many believed the Gypsies were dirty, some were criminals, and they were not to be associated with in any way, shape or form. In short, they were bad from birth. Stories were told of young Gypsies who would corner you in broad daylight to steal your money and your coat. Laws against the Rroma were passed almost from the day they arrived in Europe. In the very beginning, rumors spread that they were a band of Christian Egyptians fleeing persecution, thus coining the term “Gypsies” from the word “Egyptians.” However, as a darker skinned people who did not lead the settled lifestyle of people already in the area, they were soon suspect. By the 19th century, scholars in Germany and elsewhere in Europe were writing about Rromanies and Jews as being inferior beings; Charles Darwin, writing in 1871, singled out the two populations (Jews and Gypsies) as not being “culturally advanced” like other “territorially settled” peoples. Differences in religious and cultural practices led to rumors of them being magicians or vampires, which led to their ostracization.

Resembling Jews in many ways, but generally below average in IQ, Gypsies were branded as “antisocial,” harassed and eventually herded, along with other undesirables, into concentration camps. Gypsies faced a widespread “Nazi” crackdown.

Gypsies were seen as a threat to German racial purity, though Heinrich Himmler himself wavered, trying to avoid interning those he considered “pure Gypsies” descended from Aryan roots in India. A notable writer on the subject, Guenter Lewy (The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies, Oxford University Press, USA, 2000), contradicts the establishment line by showing that, however much the Gypsies were cracked down upon, there was no general program of extermination as has been claimed. Lewy’s meticulously researched and methodically presented study—a work of exemplary scholarship—is based on the study of primary documents in archives and in various governmental agencies.

In many ways, early National Socialist policy regarding the Gypsies constituted a radicalization of existing legislation. During the Kaiser’s Reich and the Weimar Republic, many German states passed laws restricting trade and movement for Gypsies. These laws were enacted partly in response to demands from the local population, who often viewed the lifestyle and thievery of Gypsies with understandable aversion.

Anyone who traveled as a Gypsy, or had dark skin resembling a Gypsy, was considered to have Gypsy blood.

Citing anthropological evidence, Lewy recounts that stealing from a Gaje (non-Gypsy), as long as it was limited to basic necessities and not motivated by greed, carried little stigma according to many Gypsy cultures. Lewe uses this and other examples as illustrations of how cultural and behavioral differences between Gypsies and non-Gypsies often made congenial relations difficult to maintain, and how they eventually made Gypsies the victims of various forms of discriminatory legislation.

Before the war, the decree for “Combating the Gypsy Plague” for the first time officially labeled Gypsies as racially inferior. This was issued in December 1938 and called for registration of all Gypsies.

Robert Ritter and his staff at Germany’s Research Institute for Racial Hygiene and Population Biology carried out experiments and measurements on thousands of Gypsies. They reached the conclusion that the purer the blood of a Gypsy, the less inclined he was to engage in criminal activity. This conclusion provided National Socialist officials with a useful explanation to the question of the racial origin of the Gypsies.

Many National Socialist scientists had long wrestled with the predicament of how to address the presumed Indian origin of the Gypsies, which indicated that they were of Aryan descent. By arguing that the vast majority of contemporary Gypsies (about 90%) were of mixed ancestry and hence of inferior racial stock, Ritter and his staff were able to play the race card against the Gypsy minority. The passing of this decree resulted in a significant reduction of Gypsy freedom of movement, and many were forced into supervised municipal camps, where they had little or no opportunity to commit crimes. 

With the outbreak of war, the National Socialists developed a grand scheme to rid Germany of these unwanted people. This initiative called for the deportation of all Gypsies to newly acquired territories in eastern Poland. For a variety of reasons, however (for instance, the lack of transportation), this venture failed. Only about 2,500 of the approximately 30,000 Gypsies in Germany were deported during this campaign.

Some Gypsies were allowed to stay in Germany because they had a permanent place of residence, kept their homes in an orderly manner and held regular jobs.

Searching for a new solution to the Gypsy problem, Himmler announced a new and more coherent policy in December 1942. Himmler supported Ritter’s ideas concerning the racial differences between pure Gypsies and mixed bloods. These ideas clearly served as a basis for the “Auschwitz Decree,” as it called for the deportation of the latter to Auschwitz, while the former were to be largely exempted. The decree provided specific guidelines for groups that were to be exempted: racially pure Gypsies, mixed bloods who had been adopted by a racially pure group, Gypsies who were legally married to persons of German blood, and “socially adjusted” Gypsies. Lewy points to numerous examples of Gypsies who, by living what the National Socialists defined as socially well-adjusted lives, were able to avoid expulsion despite their inferior racial status.

Lowy asserts that no documentation exists that the National Socialists possessed a blueprint for Gypsy extermination.

One Roman Mirga was one of the earliest Gypsy “holocaust survivors” who had his story made into a book. This was in 1986, more than 40 years after being liberated. His story gives us the truth about what it was like to be a prisoner at Auschwitz. One might say he was one of the lucky ones, because his father was a musician favored by the camp authorities. He and his family were at least kept alive. It is important to note that in many concentration camps Rroma families were kept together.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that a single Gypsy was gassed by National Socialist Germany—much less was there any policy of genociding the Gypsies.