Treatment of Gypsies in Early Industrial England and Nazi Germany

Throughout history, the racial group known to the world as the Gypsies or Romani has been the subject of much persecution. Judith Okely remarks that "The history of the Gypsies is marked by attempts to exoticise, disperse, control, assimilate, or destroy them." (Okely, p. 1) Similarly, Donald Kenrick and Grattan Puxon note that the only change in the history of their repression is the details. (Kenrick and Puxon, p. 46) There are two time periods which stand out in the history of the Gypsies for having a profound impact on their entire race. The first period is the period of early industrialization in England, when cities experienced a mass influx of people and a rise in organized work. This period is of special historical importance because it is the beginning of the modernization of Europe and the world. The second period is during World War II in Germany, when the Gypsies were rounded up in a fashion similar to the Jews. This period is of special importance to the Gypsies because it is the greatest catastrophe in their history. By comparing and contrasting these two time intervals, it can be seen how similar and different attitudes were expressed towards the same group of people, although separated by time and geography.

In order to understand the general attitudes towards the Gypsies, we must first take a brief look at their history in Europe. The earliest date which Gypsies are recorded having been in Europe is sometime during the fifteenth century. While it is likely that there were some tribes of Gypsies in various parts of Europe prior to this era, there are no records of these people, and we can only speculate about their earlier history. (Vesey-Fitzgerald, p. 2) From this time onward, laws were passed against Gypsies regularly. In some places, the punishment was merely deportation, but in other places, being a Gypsy was a hanging offense. (Hancock, p. 136) The Gypsies were fortunate enough to escape the Catholic Inquisition, but this was only a temporary respite. As early as 1715, Gypsies were sent to colonial America, in order to remove them from European countries. (Kenrick and Puxon, p. 28; Vesey-Fitzgerald, p. 31)

While punishments for being a Gypsy were fairly mild thus far, they became progressively worse, especially if officials had an accusation of criminal activity against the Gypsies in question: "One of the most infamous trials for cannibalism occurred in Hungary in 1782. Almost two hundred Gypsies were arrested and charged with this crime and systematically tortured until they confessed." (Kenrick and Puxon, p. 33) It can be sure that the punishment for these Gypsies who confessed was death, since anything less would be inconsistent with typical punishments for Gypsies at the time. (Okely, p. 4) This severity of punishment remained until the nineteenth century, when a new sense of humanism inspired the people to take an interest in the Gypsies, both benevolent and patronizing in nature. Another group who began to show interest in and support for them was the nobility, who saw the Gypsies as an interesting distraction. (Kenrick and Puxon, pp. 28, 40) Despite these kindly interests in the Gypsies, official views of the Gypsies remained negative. Gypsies continued to be persecuted for their idleness, even while being seen as "helpless in the face of industrialization, modern technology and urban advance." (Okely, pp. 5, 28) It is this idea of the idleness of Gypsies during the Industrial Period which led to much of their persecution in England during the early Industrial Period.

During the period of British industrialization, the Gypsies found their lifestyle radically altered: "industrialisation is seen as one of the mechanisms for acculturation and the destruction of the Gypsies' alleged autonomy." (Okely, p. 33) They valued their independence above most other items of importance, but they found it extremely difficult to oppose the intrusion of urban civilization upon their traditional lifestyle. (Behlmer, p. 240) Forced into a sedentary lifestyle, either by necessity or in order to make their lives easier, their nomadic nature had not died completely. (Vesey-Fitzgerald, p. 1) As a result, however, they were changed at many levels: economically, domestically, linguistically, artistically, and politically. (Acton, p. 43) Yet these changes did not affect the Gypsies as much as might be expected.

As much as industrialization should have affected them, Gypsies were remarkably resilient and adjusted well. They managed to refuse proletarian influences and remain independent of one of the fundamental features of industrialized society: wage-labor. (Okely, pp. 52-53) Being "habitual vagrants" allowed them to avoid the work system which had been brought about by industrialization and capitalism. Instead, Gypsies continued in some of their previous occupations - for example, they could still sell their handmade baskets and clothespins - in a manner that remained unaffected by industrialized society. (Behlmer, pp. 231, 233) In this way, the Gypsy lifestyle was not really affected by the ideals of paid labor and a standard work day which came with industrialization.

But the very presence of Gypsies of England "struck some reformers as an intolerable affront to the values of modern civilization." (Behlmer, p. 231) These people desired for the whole of society to conform to one standard, and would try to impose their beliefs even on the Gypsies. Other reformers, on the other hand, admired the free spirits of the Gypsies and were fascinated by their avoidance of urban life. (Behlmer, p. 232) B.C. Smart and H.T. Crofton made the statement: "In these days of material progress and much false refinement, they presented the singular spectacle of a race in our midst who regard with philosophical indifference the much-prized comforts of material civilization, and object to forego their simple life in close contact with Nature, in order to engage in the struggle after wealth and personal aggrandizement." (qtd. in Behlmer, p. 239)

This was the key reason why the Gypsies were admired - they could be outside of all of the problems of modern life, and be even better off than those people in the center of modern life. The philologists saw Gypsy life as an indication that "the animal in the human being was strong, and that English civilization had gone too far toward repressing healthy animal instincts." (Behlmer, p. 251) This was a much kinder attitude than in earlier days, and the Gypsies benefited some from these new attitudes, despite the fact that they tended to patronize the Romani people rather than respecting them as a race.

While the treatment of the Gypsies in early industrial England was certainly not comparable to the later harsh treatment of the Gypsies in Nazi Germany, it was still a period of time which affected the Romani as a group. Although many Gypsies resisted the assimilation to modern life and society, their rural lifestyle could never be the same. The enormity of change in both economic and social fields affected the Gypsies in many ways similar to the ways in which Nazi policies of genocide affected the Gypsies.

The history of the Gypsies in Germany is not very different from their history in the whole of Europe. Their arrival is placed during the fifteenth century, and from this time on, reactions towards them were generally very negative and, in some cases, violent. (Huttenbach, p. 33) As early as 1899, the Gypsies were subjects of government research. Alfred Dillmann founded a Gypsy Information Service in Munich in this year. Later, it was renamed the Central Office for Fighting the Gypsy Nuisance, revealing the true feelings of the government towards the Romani people. Gypsy life was severely restricted during the period between 1934 and the beginning of the Second World War by various regulatory measures and laws. (Kenrick and Puxon, p. 60; Huttenbach, p. 33) During the early years of the war, Gypsies were persecuted to some extent, but it was probably not until the summer of 1942 that officials decided that the Gypsies would be annihilated with the Jews. It is believed that this decision was quite possibly a personal decision by Himmler, although "Other Nazi leaders were of course involved in the discussions leading to the policy." (Kenrick and Puxon, p. 86) In order to understand this crucial resolution, the reasons behind it must now be examined.

To the Nazi mind, it was clear from the outset that the efficient state planned by the Nazi leaders did not allow a place for people with nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyles. There were many other reasons behind the Nazi desire to exterminate the Gypsies. Some of these reasons lay in the views brought forward by the work of Eva Justin. She believed that it would be impossible for Gypsies to be integrated into normal Nazi society because they were primitive and asocial. (Kenrick and Puxon, pp. 68-69) "Asocial" was a word frequently used to describe the Gypsies, and essentially meant that they were outside of the accepted society and did not seem to wish to be a part of the accepted society. This was seen by the Nazis as an affront to their established norms, and as a result, the Nazis felt the need to remove this "threat" from their society. (Noakes, p. 17)

Another core reason for the Nazis' wish to eliminate the Gypsies was that the Gypsies were not a part of their idea of the Aryan race. Experiments were done in an effort to prove that Gypsies had a different skull structure and different blood than the Aryan Germans. (Kenrick and Puxon, p. 60) The irony of this belief is that the Germans were mistaken about the Gypsies origins, and in all honesty, the Gypsies were even more Aryan than the Germans. (Noakes, p. 18) This idea is best stated by Henry R. Huttenbach: "If Gypsies were 'parasites' and 'asocials,' then 100 percent pure Gypsies should be the most 'dangerous' and the most Lebensunwertesleben [lives unworthy of life]. But if Gypsies were considered Aryans that originated in India, then "full-blooded" Gypsies ought to be ranked alongside German Aryans!" (Huttenbach, p. 35) Clearly, it can be seen why the Germans were unwilling to accept the Gypsies as Aryans - they did not wish a people whose appearance and customs were so different from their own to be considered their equals. Therefore, they were prime candidates for eradication.

Mere restrictions on the Gypsies did not seem to be sufficient methods of control, despite the success these methods had previously had in other parts of Europe (Kenrick and Puxon, p. 76). Dr. Robert Ritter was in favor of assigning pure-bred Gypsies to a specific area "where they would be permitted to live according to their traditional ways more or less as museum specimens." (Noakes, p. 18) This idea was also been proposed by Himmler, yet was not implemented. (Hancock, p. 138) Instead, the "Nazi policy in the occupied territories was to intern the Gypsies in holding camps and from there to transport them into Germany and Poland for use as slave labor or for extermination." (Kenrick and Puxon, p. 100) This policy was used by both the Germans and the French collaborators as a cheap source of temporary labor. There were, of course, exceptions made for some of the Gypsies, which were similar to exemptions for the Jews. Most dealt with those Gypsies related to Germans or those who were too sickly to travel. (Kenrick and Puxon, pp. 78, 103)

During the Nuremberg trials at the conclusion of the war, "not one Gypsy was called as a witness by the Allied prosecutors." (Kenrick and Puxon, p. 189) It was believed by the Allies and supported by the Germans that the Gypsies had not been executed for racial reasons, but because they were asocial and criminal. Also, very few Gypsies would have been willing to come forward as a surviving Gypsy, because they believed that being identified as a Gypsy could still result in their death or harassment. (Kenrick and Puxon, pp. 189-90) As an unfortunate result, the Germans were not prosecuted for their persecution of the Gypsies, and this victimization has become "a mere footnote of the Nuremberg Trials." (Huttenbach, p. 45)

While it is clear that the Gypsies in early industrial England and Nazi Germany had very little in common other than their racial ancestry, the persecutions which both groups faced were for similar reasons. The Gypsies did not fit into the popular view of what society should be, and therefore had to be either assimilated or eliminated. Where the people of early industrial England favored the former method, the Nazis preferred the latter, stronger measure. This difference can be seen as resulting either from the differences in time and location or as the difference between the predominant views of society as a whole in these two locations. Regardless of the opinion one has on why the Gypsies were persecuted so severely, the fact remains that the Gypsies survived through this persecution, and even to this day remain outside of the societal norm, proving that they were able to resist the changes which society has desired to impose upon them over time.

Works Cited:

Acton, Thomas Gypsy Politics and Social Change. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974.

Behlmer, George K. "The Gypsy Problem in Victorian England," Victorian Studies 27 (Winter 1985).

Hancock, Ian. "The East European Roots of Romani Nationalism." In The Gypsies of Eastern Europe, David Crowe and John Kolsti, eds. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1991.

Huttenbach, Henry R. "The Romani Porajmos: The Nazi Genocide of Gypsies in Germany and Eastern Europe." In The Gypsies of Eastern Europe, David Crowe and John Kolsti, eds. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1991.

Kenrick, Donald, and Puxon, Grattan. The Destiny of Europe's Gypsies. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1972.

Noakes, Jeremy. "Life in the Third Reich: Social Outcasts in Nazi Germany." History Today 35 (December 1985).

Okely, Judith. The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Vesey-Fitzgerald, Brian. Gypsies of Britain North Pomfret, Vt.: David & Charles, 1973.