Introduction

The history of many nations and ethnic minorities is marked by tragic events. Above all, the Roma are often perceived through the negative prism of prejudice. Opinions on many aspects of life in excluded Roma communities have persisted for many centuries.(1)

In the ethnogenesis of the Roma, there are also positive moments, but the attitude of majority society and legal norms were largely anti-Roma. The issue of the social status of Roma in the territory of the Slovak State must be viewed in the economic-agrarian context of the Slovak countryside. The agrarian economy utilized the services of traditional Roma crafts. Payment for these services was modest, mostly in kind. In the countryside, a symbiotic system functioned, thanks to which many "farmers" refused to report Roma to labor units.

Roma and Sinti in the Reich

The social position of the Roma in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century was not favorable. States adopted measures to prevent nomadism, which in political as well as lay circles was considered the main cause of exclusion, marginalization, and criminality of nomads – Roma. In Munich in 1899, the Roma Information Service was established, founded as a research institution by Alfred Dillman. The Information Service later became the basis for the establishment of the Institute for Racial Hygiene and Genetic Research.(2) The director of the institute was Dr. Robert Ritter, who was commissioned to register all Roma in Germany. According to Bessonov, by February 1941 the institute had compiled 20,000 card files, and by the spring of 1942 the final number amounted to a total of 30,000 files. Data was obtained through interrogation, sometimes with police involvement and under the threat of camp concentration. The obtained data was summarized and reflected in genealogical tables, which served to determine ethnicity. The list included not only nomadic but also permanently settled Roma, as well as those who had served in the army and achieved military merits and ranks.(3) Also included in the list were Roma – "mixed-bloods"(4) and children from orphanages.(5)

The National Socialist policy of racial discrimination and persecution against the Roma began immediately after Hitler's rise to power. The Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, adopted in Nuremberg on September 15, 1935, placed the Roma at the lowest positions of the constructed racial hierarchy. Only some nomadic families from the Sinti and Laller groups(6) were considered "racially pure" within the intentions of the ideology, while Roma with Balkan historical genesis were labeled as genetically inferior and harmful population groups.

The exercise of state power against the Roma in Germany was carried out based on three main practices. R. Ritter and E. Jutin developed a methodology for sterilization, which was initially considered the most feasible "solution to the Roma question." Sterilizations were practiced in Germany in the pre-war period, and later also in concentration camps and in the occupied parts of the Reich. In the spring of 1941, special units – Einsatzgruppen – were commissioned to "solve the Roma question." Military units often utilized cooperation with the local population. The third and final intention of Nazi power was the deportation of Roma from German territory. The issue of "Roma asocials"(7) in the Reich was dealt with by camp concentration and subsequent extermination.

The Roma were persecuted and racially discriminated against in every area of life. The most stringent regulations concerned labor relations, school attendance, freedom of movement, travel, and marriage.

In October 1942, the Reich Security Main Office commissioned "representatives of the genetically pure" Sinti and Laller to compile lists of "good mixed-bloods" who were to be spared from deportation. These attempts at enumeration ended in fiasco, and on December 16, 1942, H. Himmler issued an order for the forced concentration of "Gypsy mixed-bloods, Roma Gypsies, and non-German members of Gypsy groups of Balkan origin".(8) Based on this order, Roma from the Sudetenland and the Protectorate were also deported. In most concentration camps, buildings were designated strictly for Roma only.(9) In concentration camps, as well as outside them, Roma were severely persecuted and murdered. Cases of medical experiments are known, which were also accompanied by unimaginable suffering and ended in death.

In the Protectorate, Reich legislation applied; the fate of the Roma in Bohemia was equally tragic. On March 14, 1939, a state entity was established in our territory, possessing the external and internal characteristics of a state entity. The social position of the Roma in the Slovak State was qualitatively better than in Germany and the Protectorate. The reasons for this situation must be sought in the different historical development of the Roma in our country and in Western Europe. A sedentary way of life, relatively stable employment, and mutual economic interdependence represent the main historical aspects that saved many Slovak Roma from the tragedy of World War II.

The Slovak State was under strong German influence. Its legislation was heavily inspired by the Reich model. Nevertheless, its creation was relatively independent. The Slovak state authorities primarily focused on "solving the Jewish question," which they handled "brilliantly" – approximately 70,000 Jews deported from Slovak territory. The Roma initially remained outside the center of their attention, because the basic motive for persecution – economic benefits – was lacking.(10)

Roma in the Territory of the Slovak State from 1939 to 1942

The Citizenship Law of September 25, 1939, divided the inhabitants of the Slovak State into two groups – state citizens and foreign elements. Among the disenfranchised citizens, only Jews were explicitly included; for Roma, their way of life, employment, and political and moral attitudes had to be secondarily determined. Under the term "Gypsy, according to § 9 of the regulation having the force of law No. 130/1940 Sl. z., is to be understood only a member of the Gypsy race, descended from it through both parents, who lives a nomadic life or, although settled, avoids work."(11) This classification was often perceived subjectively, which was reflected especially in relation to professions requiring constant movement.

In the beginning, state power focused on those areas of Roma life that the majority population considered undesirable and unacceptable. A policy of segregation and sedentarization began, which in practical form was implemented by revoking trade and traveling permits.(12) According to Tancoš J. and Lužica R., a decree of April 20, 1941, revoked the traveling permits of "itinerant Gypsies" and ordered all Roma in the territory of the state to return to their home municipalities within eight days. If they did not have an established domicile, they were to return to the municipality where they usually stayed in winter. The draft animals and carts that Roma owned were to be sold within 14 days of the decree's issuance, and the proceeds were to be used for the construction of Roma settlements.(13) This measure caused many Roma to lose their traditional source of livelihood, which was tied to constant movement from place to place. An example is Roma waste collectors, who were explicitly dependent on constant movement for their work. All Roma had to register in the municipality where they had their domicile. This procedure met with disapproval in practice; municipalities circumvented the regulations in every possible way and refused to accept Roma. Regulations to prevent the nomadic way of life of Roma in our territory did not cease even after World War II. The last anti-nomad law in our territory was adopted in 1958.(14)

The regulation of the Ministry of the Interior of September 2, 1942, already concerned permanently settled Roma. It ordered them to remove their dwellings from municipal and state roads. The municipality was to provide a new plot; the costs associated with the construction of the dwelling were to be covered by the Roma themselves. Exact numbers of resettled Roma are not known.

Labor Units for "Roma Asocials"

From 1942, the persecution policy in Germany intensified, which was naturally reflected in the conceptual issues of our legislation. In our territory, there were tendencies to create labor units even during the time of autonomy. Initiatives for the establishment of labor units were initiated by the Minister of the Interior Alexander Mach, who was inspired by the German model of "solving the Roma asocials." According to C. Nečas, labor units were "places of camp concentration with compulsory residence and forced labor. Their task was to quarantine and punish persons for political, moral, and racial reasons."(15) Among the main reasons for the establishment of labor camps, we also include resocialization and reeducation motives. On April 2 and 8, 1941, the Ministry of the Interior decided to establish labor units and presented their basic organizational framework.(16) In the context of these decrees and with regard to the objective, two types of forced labor units were established – for Jews and for other asocials. The first labor units in the territory of the Slovak State were opened in the summer of 1941 in Očová (Zvolen district) and Most na Ostrove (Senec district). Their duration was not long-term.

For the labor concentration of Roma, the legislative concept of asociality needed to be changed. Persons who disturb the peace and morality of a decent and educated person, repeatedly violate public order, and by their behavior arouse the opposition of the majority population were to be placed in these units. Despite an explicit prohibition by the Ministry of the Interior, such a broad interpretation of asocial behavior led to its subjective assessment and abuse.

In the territory of the Slovak State, there were several labor units that were secondarily, but also primarily, focused on forcing Roma to work. Among the largest, we include labor units in Ilava, Revúca, Hanušovce nad Topľou, and Dubnica nad Váhom. All labor units were established to utilize the labor potential of "asocials" for the heaviest work in the construction of waterworks, cleaning and regulation of watercourses, and maintenance of roads and public spaces.

In the first half of 1942, the Ministry of the Interior proceeded to establish a complex of eastern Slovak labor units with an administrative center in Hanušovce nad Topľou. The main administrative management included labor units in Bystré nad Topľou, Nižný Hrabovec, Ptičie, and in Jarabá in central Slovakia. According to P. Šafranko, more than 3,000 persons were concentrated in these units, of which more than half were Roma.(17) The most significant construction project on which Roma from these units worked was the Prešov – Strážske railway line. The nearly 62-kilometer line was strategic for domestic transport, especially after the cession of Košice to Hungary. The complex of labor units ceased to exist through liquidation, which was completed by the end of June 1943, following the completion of work on the aforementioned line. Working conditions in the camp were very harsh. The most problematic area of the unit's operation was the feeding of the internees. Dissatisfaction was caused by supply problems; cases of food theft are known. Due to a lack of food and strenuous work, the internees were physically exhausted. The decline in work performance led the company carrying out the work to divide the internees into two wage categories. The first, stronger and more able-bodied group, worked under an hourly wage system. The second group consisted of weaker individuals whose remuneration was tied to performance. These two groups complemented each other and changed according to performance. In such a payment system, internees who could not maintain a high work pace could hardly earn enough to cover their own overhead costs. The housing conditions of the internees were also unsatisfactory. Very poor hygiene, lack of drinking water, and inadequate clothing led to high morbidity and mortality among the internees. The dormitories were infested with flies and lice, and dirty. As a result of these unsatisfactory living conditions, many internees escaped from the units.

Shortly after the opening of the eastern Slovak labor units, a labor camp was established in Dubnica nad Váhom. The main purpose of its establishment was the construction of a waterworks in this town. According to K. Janas, the internees were to work on earthworks. Originally, the labor unit was to hold a maximum of 300 "asocials," but this number was exceeded several times during its existence. Of the internees, approximately half were always Roma; over the entire period of the camp's existence, approximately 2,000 men were placed there.(18) Given that this unit was constantly under-capacity, housing conditions were catastrophic. The most noticeable shortage was of beds. The beds available to the internees were infested with insects, which practically prevented restful sleep. Among the biggest problems during the unit's existence was the lack of clothing and footwear for the internees. The health condition of the internees was also unsatisfactory. The authorities and the employer feared most the spread of a typhus epidemic.

Genocide of the Roma in 1944 – 1945

The social position of the Roma in our territory changed only after the entry of German military units to suppress the Slovak National Uprising and the final "solution of the Jewish question." According to K. Janas, the state's repressive measures against the Roma also intensified at the same time. In this period, two main lines can be observed that we could not have encountered in the previous period. The first is the opening of the so-called internment camp for Gypsies,(19) which was created by the transformation of the labor unit in Dubnica nad Váhom at the end of 1944. During the transformation, all internees of the "white race" were to be released; the release of Roma was strictly prohibited. The basic motive for the forced concentration of Roma in the internment camp was ethnicity; the "degree of harmfulness" to the surroundings or asocial behavior was not examined, as was the case for placement in labor units. The internment camp in Dubnica nad Váhom was established as a concentration camp exclusively for Roma.

In December 1944, 700 Roma were concentrated and detained in the camp, regardless of gender or age. Hygienic and health conditions in the internment camp were miserable. Most detainees slept on the ground due to an acute shortage of beds. The beds that were available were lice-ridden and full of insects. Lack of food, drinking water, and sanitary facilities contributed to the outbreak of a typhus epidemic during January 1945.(20) The Roma began to flee the camp for fear of infection, which caused panic in the town. Residents and mayors of surrounding villages demanded the rapid liquidation of the camp. A radical solution came with the takeover of camp command by the Germans, who feared the spread of infection among workers at the strategically important arms factory. The infected were transported to the grounds of the Dubnica arms factory, where they met a collective death in a shaft pit. Twenty-six Roma were murdered, among them a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy and a 15-year-old boy.

The second line of action by German units during the occupation represented direct physical liquidation and genocide. Since the Roma had been displaced from the vicinity of main roads, they were often accused of collaborating with partisans. Such collaboration was punished mercilessly in Žiar nad Hronom, Tisovec, Krupina, and Slatina. Another tragedy occurred in Čierny Balog, where men were shot and women with children were locked in the settlement, which was doused with gasoline and set on fire. Several mass murders also took place in the Spiš region.

Conclusion

The number of burned settlements and the number of persecuted persons are not precisely known. The genocide of the Roma in Slovakia did not reach the scale as in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, which formally belonged to the Reich. In the territory of today's Czech Republic, two "Roma" concentration camps were established in Lety (near Písek) and Hodonín (near Kunštát). In the Czech lands, only about 500 Roma remained after World War II. After the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans, recruitment drives were organized among Slovak Roma after the war for the abandoned Czech-German borderlands. It is precisely in these areas that the highest concentration of Roma is found today.

The subsequent period in history was not favorable for the Roma. Social engineers of the socialist regime presented ideologically colored concepts that were intended to forever elevate the "inhabitants of Gypsy origin" to a higher material developmental level, thus enabling them to enjoy all the benefits of an advanced socialist society.

Author: Mgr. Anastazij Momot Department of Christian Anthropology and Social Work Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Prešov in Prešov References:

БЕССОНОВ, Н.: Цыганская трагедия 1941 – 1945. Том 2 – Вооружëный отпор. 2nd edition. Санкт – Петербург 2010. ISBN 978-5-86443-161-0. БЕССОНОВ, Н.: История цыган – новый бзгляд. 1st edition. Воронеж 2000. ISBN 5-89981-180-3. CANGÁR, J.: Ľudia z rodiny Rómov - Manuša andar e familia roma. 1st edition. Nové Zámky 2003. ISBN 80-88992-42-7. JANAS, K.: Niekoľko nových poznatkov o existencii zaisťovacieho tábora v Dubnici nad Váhom. In: Romano džaniben – sborník romistických studií. Společnost přátel časopisu romano džaniben, Praha 2004, niňaj, pp. 29-33. ISSN 1210-8545. JANAS, K.: Perzekúcie Rómov v Slovenskej republike (1939 – 1945). 1st edition. Bratislava 2010. ISBN 978-80-89335-30-5. JANAS, K.: Postoj slovenských orgánov pri riešení rómskej problematiky a jeho zmena po porážke SNP. In: Slovenská republika 1939 – 1945 očami mladých historikov. Povstanie roku 1944. UCM Trnava, Katedra histórie FF 2004, roč. III, pp. 341 – 358. ISBN 80-89034-75-6. JANAS, K.: Zabudnuté tábory. 1st edition. Trenčín 2008. ISBN 978-80-8075-310-8. KAMENEC, I.: Holocaust na Slovensku – porovnanie osudov rómskych a židovských obyvateľov. In: Neznámý holocaust. 1st edition. Praha 1995, pp. 64-70. KENRICK, D – PUXON, G.: Cikáni pod hákovým křížem. 2nd edition. Olomouc 2000. ISBN 80-244-0048-0. KUZYŠIN, B.: Špecifiká rómskeho rodinného prostredia – širokospektrálna analýza. In: Sociálna a duchovná revue: Vedecko – recenzovaný zborník. PU v Prešove, PBF 2010, roč. 1 (1), pp. 61 – 66. ISBN 978–80–555-0156–7. NEČAS, C.: Českoslovenští Romové v letech 1938 – 1945. 1st edition. Brno 1994. ISBN 80-210-0945-4. ŠAFRANKO, P.: Vznik a činnosť pracovného útvaru v Hanušovciach nad Topľou v roku 1942 a riešenie otázky tzv. asociálnych osôb a Rómov v podmienkach okresu Vranov nad Topľou. In: KUMANOVÁ, Z.-MANN. A. B. a kol.: Nepriznaný holocaust – Rómovia v rokoch 1939-1945. Bratislava 2007, pp. 21-25. ISBN 978-80-969798-8-2. TANCOŠ, J. – LUŽICA, R.: Zatratení a zabudnutí. 1st edition. Bratislava 2002. ISBN 80-89018-26-2.

(1) From the interwar period, anti-Roma initiatives of local agrarian communities are known. In letters from county governors from Spišská Nová Ves, Orava, Trenčín, and others from 1921, addressed to the Ministry with Full Powers for Slovakia, we see negative attitudes toward the Roma. From an earlier period, the so-called Hontian Trial is known, which took place on August 4, 1782. During drastic interrogation, several Roma confessed to cannibalism. They were executed a few days later. According to J. Cangár, "a subsequent investigation by an imperial commissioner proved their innocence: it was found that none of the persons who were supposed to have been murdered were missing, and that the confessions to murder and cannibalism were extracted from the accused Roma by torture. Further executions of the originally 173-member group of accused Roma were halted." CANGÁR, J.: Ľudia z rodiny Rómov - Manuša andar e familia roma. Nové Zámky 2003 p. 49. (2) Rassenhygienische und Erbbiologische Forschungsstelle. (3) On the issue of Roma in the military, see БЕССОНОВ, H.: Цыганская трагедия 1941 – 1945. Tom 2 – Вооружëнный отпор. 2nd edition. Санкт – Петербург 2010. ISBN 978-5-86443-161-0. (4) "Mixed-blood" according to R. Ritter's definition was a person who had fewer than three Roma among their sixteen great-grandparents in total. See KENRICK, D – PUXON, G.: Cikáni pod hákovým křížem. Olomouc 2000, p. 22. (5) See БЕССОНОВ, Н.: История цыган – новый бзгляд. Воронеж 2000, p. 184. (6) These families were to retain the right of free movement within a defined territory. If necessary, they were to serve as labor for various seasonal work. In practice, based on genetic classification, only a few families were saved. See NEČAS, C.: Českoslovenští Romové v letech 1938 – 1945. Brno 1994, p. 31. (7) Some authors advocate the view that the Roma were persecuted explicitly on the basis of asocial behavior. In this way, they secondarily negate the ethnic reasons for the Roma genocide. In our view, this opinion is insufficient. The alpha and omega of Nazi behavioral theories was the emphasis on the genotypic makeup of a person. The Roma were considered individuals who could not be educated. An individual's genetic makeup predetermined asocial behavior, which was considered a matter of "blood" – ethnicity. Likewise today, both the lay and professional public perceive Roma culture as a set of innate and immutable predispositions, rather than as environmentally learned structures and patterns of behavior. (8) See NEČAS, C.: Českoslovenští Romové v letech 1938 – 1945. Brno 1994, p. 32. (9) In Auschwitz, it was the family block BII/e. (10) See KAMENEC, I.: Holocaust na Slovensku – porovnanie osudov rómskych a židovských obyvateľov. In: Neznámý holocaust. Praha 1995, p. 66. (11) Law No. 130/1940 Sl. z. of 29 May 1940 on the Temporary Regulation of Labor Obligation of Jews and Gypsies. (12) Traveling permits were granted on the basis of Law No. 117/1927 Sb. z. on itinerant Gypsies. They contained the precisely marked route of travel and camping sites. (13) See TANCOŠ, J. – LUŽICA, R.: Zatratení a zabudnutí. Bratislava 2002, p. 54. (14) Law No. 74/1958 Z. z. on the Permanent Settlement of Nomadic Persons. (15) NEČAS, C.: Českoslovenští Romové v letech 1938 – 1945. Brno 1994. pp. 102-103. (16) See JANAS, K.: Perzekúcie Rómov v Slovenskej republike (1939 – 1945). Bratislava 2010, pp. 33 - 34. (17) See ŠAFRANKO, P.: Vznik a činnosť pracovného útvaru v Hanušovciach nad Topľou v roku 1942 a riešenie otázky tzv. asociálnych osôb a Rómov v podmienkach okresu Vranov nad Topľou. In: KUMANOVÁ, Z. - MANN. A. B. a kol.: Nepriznaný holocaust – Rómovia v rokoch 1939 - 1945. Bratislava 2007, p. 22. (18) See JANAS, K.: Zabudnuté tábory. Trenčín 2008, p. 61. (19) See JANAS, K.: Postoj slovenských orgánov pri riešení rómskej problematiky a jeho zmena po porážke SNP. In: Slovenská republika 1939 – 1945 očami mladých historikov. Povstanie roku 1944. UCM Trnava, Katedra histórie FF 2004, roč. III, p. 348. (20) See JANAS, K.: Niekoľko nových poznatkov o existencii zaisťovacieho tábora v Dubnici nad Váhom. In: Romano džaniben – sborník romistických studií. Společnost přátel časopisu romano džaniben, Praha 2004, niňaj, p. 30.