Empfehlenswerte Bücher zur Analyse unserer Gesellschaftskrise

Die IQ- Falle. Intelligenz, Sozialstruktur und Politik.
von Volkmar Weiss

Die demographische Zeitenwende.
von Herwig Birg

Die deformierte Gesellschaft.
von Meinhard Miegel

Islamische Zuwanderung. Die gescheiterte Integration. von Bassam Tibi

The Gypsy Persecution 1933-1945 and its Afterpiece.


by Hermann Arnold


The paper deals with five questions: What was before the persecution, what was the motive, whom did it concern, how many victims had been there, and who is representing the Gypsies in Germany now?

The persecution put an end to the police „control of Gypsy disorder“ 1), started about 1900 and strengthened since 1926. In Bavaria it was regulated by a special law. After 1933 police intensified its attitude towards Gypsies gradually, the government deprived them of civil rights. In 1935, the principles of the new Gypsy policy were explained by BADER 2) to an international meeting of criminologists in Copenhagen. The solution of their problem, Bader declared, would probably be found by giving those Gypsies who are willing to cooperate and to work the chance to do so. The rest would be persecuted without exception, kept in custody (penitentiaries or preventive detention) or deported. It was only vaguely considered  to include incorrigible Gypsies into the group of persons concerned by the Sterilization Act 3). The concept of „race“ played no role. The Gypsies were not devillished by the Nazi Propaganda like the Jews and the broadcasting system played Gypsy music up to 1945. The reason why Gypsy persecution today is associated with Hitler’s racism is that the Compensation Act pays only for persecution because of race, religion or political behavior. Supreme courts have dismissed claims of Gypsies deported to Poland in 1940 and returned in 1945 because they had not been persecuted because of their race but by order of the police. However, in 1963 persons involved went to law, and based on expert opinions 4) attained the status of „racially persecuted persons“. It was not least that the Federal Supreme Court followed public opinion which generally supported the persecuted ones.


The race policy of the National Socialist Party had allowed the Gypsies a subordinate part only. The Nuremberg Race Laws of September 1935 do not even mention them, they were interpreted into the law later on by commentators. It was only by the Gypsy Basic Degree (Zigeunergrunderlaß) of December 14, 1937 that the concept of „Race“ was used by the police. However, it was not the Secret State Police which was responsible for race but the criminal investigation police which was compelled to submit all Gypsies, Gypsy half-casts and persons roaming around like Gypsies to a biological examination to determine their race. It was no urgent problem since not even Hitler’s race research scientists dared define Gypsies as a race. The daily routine of criminal police was not perceptibly affected by the degree. Evidence of the racial nature of Gypsy persecution was mainly due to misunderstanding of the name of the Rassenhygienische und bevölkerungsbiologische Forschungsstelle (Race Hygienic 5) and Population-biological Research Institute), a department of the Reich Health Office. Since its establishment in 1936 it had been directed by Dr. Dr. Robert Ritter who had been qualified due to his exploration of the Yenish, Gypsy marginal groups. He was psychiatrist and psychologist, habilitated by the university of Tübingen. Since 1942 he had also directed the Criminal Biological Research Institute, a part of the already named office. He saw himself as a criminal biologist. As many of his contemporaries Ritter was convinced that criminal behaviour was due to heredity and could be reduced by eugenic measures. He believed that originally inclination to criminal behaviour had been unfamiliar to Gypsies and only became known to them by marriages with Gorgios with criminal character. In order to proof his hypothesis he constructed the genealogies of all Gypsies living in Germany and by examining their criminal records. (Apparently he intended to correlate the individual data and to evaluate statistically, yet he did not come to this step of his research.)


According to their crossbreeding with partners of the majority of the population Ritter differentiated five categories from all-Gypsy to Gorgios. His scheme only seems to be in accordance with the Nuremberg Racial Laws, in fact it was opposite to them as the genuine Gypsies are the good ones, the Arians the bad ones. Ritter’s classification could not coincide with the regime’s race ideology. Independently from these investigations all Gypsies were gradually examined by anthropologists. Their American colleague Creel, who had been occupied with their scientific inheritance, informed the Stuttgart Persecutors Office that they had only made the usual measurements and that were no indication that they had undertaken so-called racial hygienics and criminal biological researches 6).


On how the state should handle Gypsies Ritter followed Bader’s ideas. Sterilization should be decided by the Hereditary Health Courts and be based on expertise which „can only be made by medical specialists and only following profound clinical examination and sufficient observation“. In 1944 Ritter’s closest colleague, Eva JUSTIN, supported in her dissertation 7) materials for a new law dealing with asocial people but „not to be seen under the aspect of racial policy“.


Ritter fell far away from the Nazi Party and its race scientists. Even when he was no longer able to pay for the extensive genealogical researches he never asked any of the party agencies for money. The Reich Criminal Police Department 8) which was interested in his study had plenty of means but the budget did not allow a transfer to Ritter’s institute. Ritter now was personally instructed to report on those expert opinions which would meet Himmler’s instruction of July 1938 to finally determine by scientific expertise whether the persons registered by criminal police were Gypsies, Gypsy-halfcasts or other persons roaming around in the manner of Gypsies. (Ritter gave the fee to his institute.) The anthropologist Dr. Würth assured repeatedly and definitely that the Race Expertise were exclusively made for this purpose 9). Logically their content was poor exempt for personnel data and the place where the experimentees had lived while the genealogy was made, they in most cases merely named the category of his descent recording the five scale system. Ritter did not even know the present residence. As Dr. Würth further reported, it was the office personnel which choose the dates of the genealogies and mostly dispatched the simple forms with Ritter’s facsimile stamp. Not any of the authors occupied with the Race Expertise discussed the small printed footnote in its form. In it Ritter declares his genealogical archive to be layed out on demand of the Reich Board of People’s Health Service, a semi-official committee founded in the Twenties evidently to proof that it was not a Nazi race arrangement. There is no evidence that the Race Expertise were drawn up to register Gypsies for deportation. As in 1940, also in 1943 the criminal police registered Gypsies according to their affiliation to their ethnic association. For this purpose their every day experience was probably more realistic than Ritter’s analyses. In cases of doubt they may have considered his diagnoses to exclude Gorgios from deportation 10). In Austria and in the Protectorates of Bohemia and Moravia Ritter did not examine Gypsies, so those were surely recorded without so-called race expertise.

As far as it could be judged today, race did not play an important role for deportation 10a). The exemption of the nomadic marginal groups indicates that it concerned the Gypsies as a people. For the top of the regime it was not a matter of race but rather of criminality. Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, than the most important man after Hitler, tried to hinder Himmler to differentiate deportation as a matter of race. On December 3, 1942 he wrote to him: „On the occasion of a discussion of my assistant und the director of the Reich Criminal Police Department I have been informed that the attention given to the so-called pure-bred Gypsies living in the Reich shall be newly arranged. These Gypsies with the exception of the Rom Gypsies, shall be allowed to attend to their language, rituals and customs, to wander within the Reich territory and possibly even be allowed to serve within special units of the army. This special treatment would be justified as they had not been dissocialized in general and because their cult had preserved valuable German customs which should be investigated. I consider the opinion of your assistant to be excessively overstated. Such a special treatment of the so-called pure-bred Gypsies would be fundamentally dissenting from the present approaches to control Gypsy nuisance which would not be understood neither by the population nor by the lower authorities of the party. Also the Führer (Hitler) would not approve of returning former liberties to the Gypsies11). It is apparent by Bormann’s letter that the Gypsies were not deported because of their race but rather because of their police and social problems. However, to day ethnically and politically influential groups deny these facts because those do not agree with their anti-racial support of the Gypsies. They are right in fearing that the exceptional position of the Gypsies as racially persecuted and the payments to organizations involved would become doubtful. Which further would affect journalists who cherish the legend of racial discrimination. Nothing will change as long as the struggle against an allegedly still virulent racial discrimination remains something like a state objective which needs Gypsies „persecuted for race“ as paradigm.

The occupation of Poland ended the „police control of Gypsy disorder“ because it allowed the „mass movement of 30 000 Gypsies from the Reich territory to the General Goverment 12). In May 1940, 2500 Gypsies were deported from the Western provinces of Germany to Poland. There they lived in relative freedom together with their families. As far as they were able to work they were forced to different tasks. 1945, they could return to their former native country 13). Further planned transports to Poland could not take place because Poland was crowded by refugees.


Beginning March 1943, the remaining German Gypsies were transferred to the Gypsy camp, part of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp where at first they lived under conditions privileged in the eyes of the other prisoners. However, by and by they lost their priority and died because of hunger and epidemics. After those capable of work had been transferred to hard labour camps the remaining ones were killed mostly in August 1944 14). Of the 21 000 Gypsies registered Gypsy Prisoners almost 12 000 died, not including 2897 incapable of work murdered in August 1944 as well as 1 700 persons coming from Bialystok, who had not been registered, killed immedially because some of them were suffering from typhus. Neither all of the working prisoners transferred to other camps survived. Taken all together, of the Gypsies transferred to Auschwitz at least 17 000 died. In November 1941, almost 5 000 Gypsies were transferred from Austria to the Gypsy camp within the Lodz ghetto. According to the Memorial Book they were transported to Kulmhof in April 1942 to be killed. It remains uncertain how many were killed by task forces (Einsatzgruppen) behind the eastern front after June 22, 1941, probably less than 10 000 15). The Auschwitz degree of December 16, 1942 was only effective within the Deutsches Reich and its annexed areas. Occupied or associated countries were not pressed to follow the German example, perhaps except the Netherlands. In Hungary it was only after the seizure of power by the Arrow Cross Movement that Gypsies were massacred locally, allegedly about one thousand victims 16). In Slovakia there was no organized persecution. In the notorious camps of Croatian Gypsies did suffer but there was no organized persecution under Italian military administration. Also in other parts of Yugoslavia were no mass murders. How else was it possible that today in the area of Kosovo eight percent of the population are Gypsies.

It is known that in Poland Gypsies could lead their traditional way of life even during the war 17). Within the area of occupied Poland („Generalgouvernement“) neither the „Auschwitz-degree“ nor special laws against the Gypsies had been put in force. They had not been „registered“. However, they had been murderously persecuted mainly by German and Ukrainian police. Between 3 600 and 4 200 were arbitrarily killed 17a). The 1 273 Gypsies of Polish nationality arrested at Auschwitz and proven in the Memorial Book in their majority probably came from the western Polish provinces annexed by Germany. Most of them died. Highly calculated the total number of victims may amount to 7 000, but in Poland it is estimated to be between 13 000 and 20 000 (written information by Professor Dlugoborski, Director State Museum Auschwitz.)


In Rumania, however Gypsies had been persecuted systematically. The former dictator, Marshal Antonescu, declared in court „I had decided that Gypsies whose criminal records included crimes or who had stolen more than three times should be transported to Transnistria18). 24 686 persons had been determined by rural police. Upon the approach of the Red Army they could return to Roumania, partially with the aid of solders of the German military railway service.

This summary disproofs the willfully estimated number of „500 000 or more“ victims by KENRICK and PUXON in 1972 19). The addition of the numbers given by them for the different countries already proves them to be unreliable because they amount to less than half of the 500 000 claimed. There were probably 30 000, perhaps maximal 50 000, innocent persons who lost their life, about two third of the German Gypsies and two percent of the European ones.

The Gypsy deportation with all the victims involved was an offence against humanity, yet to murder them had not been planned, not even the wide spread deaths at Auschwitz. When the regime was done up with its means they were the most feable ones, the internees of all kinds who had to suffer by the shortage. The fact that the already in 1940 from Western Germany to Poland deported 2 330 Gypsies have not been brought to Auschwitz demonstrates that the regime had not intended to solve its Gypsy problems by murder but rather by deportation. A conclusion of murder like that of Wannsee against the Jews never existed. Plebeian dictatorships murder slites, social problem groups they oppress.

It was in 1948 that persecutees tried to get even with their tormentors by bringing a charge against Ritter 20), claiming that he had physically maltreated Gypsies. Ritter could prove that all witnesses belonged to the Rose clan 21), while Gypsies from other families testified correct treatment. The proceeding was discontinued, the defamation was not revenged. It was an act of vengeance to something that happened in 1938. The Rose clan, separated within the Sinti because of Jewish ancestors, had requested Ritter through a lawyer to stop researching its families because they were not Gypsies 22). Rifler refused and the members of the Rose clan, who did not want to be Gypsies, felt insulted. After 1945 they called themselves Jews and in 1955 Oskar Rose, father of Roman Rose, requested an anthropological expertise to testify that he was no Gypsy 23).


During the years to follow private persons sued Ritter and Justin. Though the inquiries found both innocent they insisted on their reproaches which, beginning in 1979, were publicized by organizations we now have to turn to. But at first a remark by COHN: „I know of no authenticated case genuine Gypsy allegiance to political or religious causes24). His verdict has been confirmed once more by the „Sinti and Roma Civic Rights Movement“, an imaginary undertaking devised by Tilman Zülch, founder and head of the Society for Threaded Peoples who, since 1970, has been trying to find ways to make Gypsies politically-minded as he understands it. To achieve this he joined Grattan Puxon and Norbert Herzog in 1978.


Puxon, a desperate agitator, in Great Britain estimated communist, suspended as Secretary General of the World Romani Congress because of embezzling contributions of the world Church Council 25), became Zülch’s adviser for Gypsy affairs. Norbert Herzog, on the other hand, was an illegitimate stepbrother of Romani Rose. His mother, worker in a printing office, had brought him up as Gorgio. During his education as administrative employee he became influenced by a communist functionary and accompanied him to Stuttgart where he found a job with the Social-democratic Party. In 1958, he tricked a deputy of federal parliament for DM 60 000. He disappeared to the communist part of Germany, returned to Western Germany as an agent in 1960, served a longer penalty beginning in 1962 and returned to activity in 1970, when he circulated a leaflet of the „Central Committee of the Sinti in Western Germany26). His activity proofed to be incomprehensible to the nature of the Sinti, they did not take notice of it and only when he, following the instruction of Puxon, mentioned money he was understood.

It is evident that it was Puxon who made the Rose family representative of the German Gypsies experienced as he was after he had made Fred Wood leader of the British Gypsies. By changing names Herzog made the Rose clan 27) the pretended representative of the Sinti, lead from the beginning by the Austrian Fritz Greußing, a Zülch assistant in the Society for Threatened People. Responsible for the propaganda was Zülch 25) himself. It was he who activated the political left human and civil rights communities for the allegedly still persecuted and discriminated Gypsies. With full page advertisements he published a memorandum requesting from the Federal Republic of Germany - analogous to the payments made to Israel - beyond the legal, individual payments global compensations of six hundred million Mark. The money should be used by international notables in favor of all Gypsies, among other purposes for a cultural center. This idea must have stimulated Puxon who, in 1975, in Paris was one of the representatives who decided „to press Germany to pay“ for a cultural center were they hoped to find a job. To emphasize their demand all means were welcomed by Zülch and companions. Gypsies would not have been able to act in such a misanthropic manner. They brought charges against former assistants of Ritter because of aiding murder and informed the media which immediately took the reproaches for granted. Non of the preliminary proceedings proved a context with the tragedy of the Gypsies. First objective of their aggression was the Gypsy welfare initiated by Arnold in 1981, organized by the catholic CARITAS association and managed by Silvia Sobeck. It was its most important aim to solve problems between Gypsies and the majority of the population and to help to prevent new ones. However, it was exactly contrary to what was Zülch and companions wanted. To obtain attention to their propaganda checked by the communist German Democratic Republic which wanted to make Gypsies a „revolutionary potential“, they needed dispute and hatred. To begin with, their agitation first reached Sobeck and Arnold who, being members of an advising group of the Federal Family Ministry concerned with the welfare of non-settled families including Gypsies. Their language was inhuman from the beginning. Zülch announced that he would „smashSobeck and Arnold. After that they attacked the Catholic Church as supporter of Gypsy welfare which would harm Gypsies by preventing them from becoming political-minded. It was different, though, with the Protestant Church which embraced the agitators with both their left arms. On 4th April, 1981, Zülch’s assistant Greußing boasted that the Protestant Church had been „beaten to solidarity“. They charged Arnold, a proven Nazi opponent and in no way having occupied himself with Gypsies prior to 1948, having supported mass murder, having been a Hitler follower and having been a racist. Maybe that at first there had been uncertain human aspects inherent to their genuine left-radical campaign, however, another intention soon gained upper hand: The drive for money. To the extent the mass media accepted their “Sinti and Roma” Swindle, politicians became willing to pay. The “movement“, pretendedly and spontaneously organized by the Gypsies received millions. Who ever could endanger the importance obtained through mass media and, consequently, the flow of money by representing the truth was made untrustworthy. Such happened to Arnold who because an expert in the 1950’s when nobody else was interested in Gypsy persecution by questioning witnesses of the time because he did not want to deal with the criminals. He was to be made silent because he knew too much.

Politicians, dreaming of a Gypsy organization with representatives, now cheerfully welcomed the bold simulation of an autonomous representation. However, some day the Association of the German Sinti would have been forced to prove its claim for representation in a democratic manner. The agitators evaded this necessity by founding the Central Committee of Sinti and Roma the statue of which knows only corporate members: Regional sections of the Ass. of German Sinti as well as about twenty „family associations“ with rarely more members than there are presidents. In this way the democratic deficit was concealed. Politicians and media took words at their face value, thereby conforming the position of Roman Rose as representative of the German Gypsies.

On May 4, 1982 the Sinto Hugo Franz opposed and declared in the name of 2 000 family heads “that they have nothing to do with Romani Rose, his Association of German Sinti and his ideas of civil rights work“. On June 22, 1982 he added during a Deutschlandfunk broadcast: “It has now been only for a short while that Romani Rose admits his origin. Some years ago he wore a “David Star and pretended to be Jewish“. Franz and his non-organized friends were not noticed by politicians just because they were not organized.

The construct of a spontaneous, autonomous representation had long ago broken up had it not been generously supported by public spending of millions every year. The media crouched. It allowed Zülch’s aggressive agitation to forbid the use of the ethnic name of Gypsy and to mention only „Sinti and Roma“, by no means report something negative. Publications concerning Gypsies are censored supported by menaces 30). Volumes could be filled by listing the malicious practices of the agitators and their adventurous compains 31) but this is hardly a matter of gypsyology. An anti-racially dressed pact by politicians and media, feeling obliged to follow political correctness, protects the „Sinti and Roma“ cheat against public criticism: A masterpiece of journalistic misleading.




1)            The Gypsy Police Station in Munich was established in 1899;

the Prussian „Instruction to Control Gypsy Nuisance“ was issued in 1902. Both had been caused by an increase of offences due to economical compulsion: Natural rise of the Sinti and (illegal) immigration of Roma met with substitution of traditional Gypsy products by machine­made merchandise.


2)            Bader, J.: Kriminalistische Monatsblätter, 1935, pp. 265-268


3)            The jurist Bader, no racist, was police expert, head of the Karlsruhe Gypsy Reports Agency.


4)            The expertises are: Buchheim, H.: Die Zigeunerdeportation im Mai 1940. Gutachten des Instituts für Zeitgeschichte. München 1958, and Döring, H.J.: Die Motive der Zigeunerdeportation im Mai 1940. Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, October 1959


5)            „Race Hygiene“, a synonym to Eugenics created around 1890 by Alfred Ploetz was preferred by National-Socialists, but it had nothing to do with „race“ in their understanding.


6)            Preliminary proceedings against the anthropologist Professor Sophie Ehrhardt. Staatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart (19) Js. 921/81.


7)            Justin, E.: Lebensschicksale artfremd erzogener Zigeunerkinder und ihrer Nachkommen. Berlin 1944.


8)            Artur Nebe, President of the Reich Criminal Headquarters, was executed due to having participated in the uprising against Hitler on July 20, 1944. He had been friendly with Ritter.


9)            Being anthropologist, Dr. Würth had not been occupied with the construction of „race expertises“. Therefore his informations could not be classified as protecting defense. Though being soldier since 1941 he could once in a while visit the institute.


10)          Expert opinions about Jenische (same as tinkers) were labeled „non-Gypsies“.


11)          Bundesarchiv, Bestand NS neu, Nr. 180, pp. 67-68. - Himmler wanted to favour the Bohemian Lalleri-Sinti, estimated by Rifler to be extremely criminal. (Personal information by Dr. Würth.)


12)          Discussion at Himmler’s headquarters (Reichssicherheitshauptamt) on January 10, 1940 concerning „Execution of Resettlement projects by order of the Führer


13)          Described in: H. Arnold: Zigeunerdeportation 1940. - To be published in ,,Pfälzer Heimat“, 2003.


14)          At least two of the three killing campains were ordered by the camp commander Höss without instruction from Berlin in order to make room for Jews from Hungary. (Letter from the archive official Luchterhandt, profound expert of the relevant files. His thesis concerning Gypsy persecution will be published by Verlag Schmidt-Römhild / Lübeck in October 2000.) - The figures concerning Auschwitz are taken from the Memorial Book, The Gypsies at Auschwitz-Birkenau. München 1993.


15)          In 1941/42 „task forces“ killed 520 000 persons in the East, nine tenth of them Jews, the other 50 000 mostly persons said to follow „efforts hostile to State and Reich. As the Great Sowjet Encyclopedia from 1978 (\/ol. 28, col. 1809) speaks of „about 20 thousend Gypsies... exterminated... during World War II in Middle and East Europe“, in the Sowjet Union the number of victims can hardly have been important.


16)          Karsai, László: Ciganykérdés Magyarorszagcn 1944-1945. Regio“, 1991/I., pp. 124-143. - The renown Hungarian Gypsy expert Jozef Vekerdi estimates about one hundred. (Letter from March 2000.)


17)          Döring, H.J. (cited in footnote 4 above) p. 164, footnote 34.


17a)        Kaszyga, Piotre: Die Morde an Sinti und Roma im Generalgouvernement 1939-1945. Contribution to: Dlugoborski, Waclaw (editor): Sinti und Ronia im KL Auschwitz-Birkenau. Oswiecim (Staatliches Museum) 1998.


18)          The Trial against Marshal Antonescu. Documents II. Editura nova. Bucaresti 1997, p. 176. - Documents concerning the deportation: State Archives Bucaresti IGJ 126, 201, 203/1942 and DGP 187/1942


19)          Kenrick, D. and Grattan Puxon: The Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies. Sussex University Press 1972. - Already in 1953 the Gypsy Lore Society was distant to them because of a financial problem. (Personal information by Miss Yates, in that time General Secretary of the Society.)


20)          District Court Frankfurt/Main, 55/3 Js. 5582/48.


21)          Clan families: Adler, Bamberger, Rose, Strauß.


22)          Dr. Würth witnessed this discussion. He reports inter alia, that the lawyer pointed out that his client was protected by Otto Meiáner, head of Hitler’s Presidial Office, ranking Reichsminister.


23)          For his letters see Bundesarchiv, ZSg. 142, Anhang 64 under the numeral 1.3123.


24)          Cohn, W.: The Gypsies. Reading MA, 1973


25)          Written information by the President of the British branch of the World Romani Union.


26)          The rhetoric was typical for remarks of the communist regime in Eastern Germany. In March 1981, the leaflet was reproduced in Zülch’s „Pogrom“ 80/81 to prove former activities of the Association of German Sinti.


27)          The former name was „Verband und Interessengemeinschaft rassisch Verfolgter nichtjüdischen Glaubens deutscher Staatsangehörigkeit“. From its foundation in 1958 until 1972 there is no entry in the register of the Mannheim District Court to be found, i.e. the association had not been active. Herzog, now Vice President, pushed its renaming in „Verband der Sinti in Deutschland“


28)          Zülch is a first grade cousin of the tobacco magnate Jan Philipp Reemtsma.


29)          Ritter died already in 1951.


30)          The way this has been done has been described by J.S. Hohmann in his book: „bravo sinto“. Auf den Spuren eines verfolgten Buches. Fernwald 1986.


31)          A selection can be found by Arnold, H.: Von der Zigeunertragödie zur Politkomödie. Verlag Dr. Hans Blinn, Landau/Pfalz 1999.


Vom Paläölithikum zum Neolithikum

Die Annahme, der Sozialtypus des Zigeuners sei genetisch bedingt, beruht auf vier Tatsachen:

1. Ihre Wirtschaftsweise als "Wildbeuter" haben die Zigeuner, seit sie in unseren Gesichtskreis getreten sind, zwar den jeweiligen Verhältnissen angepaßt, in ihren Grundzügen aber konstant bewahrt.

2. Soweit der Wortschatz ihrer Sprache indischen Ursprungs ist, beschränkt er sich auf die Bedürfnisse dieser Wirtschaftsform. Daraus ist zu schließen, daß sie dieser auch schon vor der Auswanderung gefolgt waren.

3. Die Nachkommen aus Ehen zwischen Zigeunern und Nichtzigeunern folgen hinsichtlich ihres ökonomischen Verhaltens in der F2-Generation je zur Hälfte den unterschiedlichen Wirtschaftsstilen der Großeltern.

4. Konstante Mischlingsgruppen (Jenische, Tinker, Mercheros etc.), die aus Verbindungen "echter Zigeuner" mit Menschen aus unterschiedlichen Völkern hervorgegangen sind, zeigen alle den nämlichen Typus des Wirtschaftens, nämlich den der Zigeuner.

Der Unterschied zur europäischen Mehrheitsbevölkerung könnte auf einer Erbanlage beruhen, die Wahrnehmung von "Zeit" beeinflußt, sie auf das "Hier und Jetzt" einengt, was dem Wildbeuter beim Finden seiner Nahrung in der Natur hilft. Der Verlust dieser Eigenschaft mußte Zukunft und Vergangenheit stärker bewußt machen, was die Mutanten zur planenden Wirtschaftsweise nötigen und befähigen konnte, mithin zur "neolithischen Revolution".

Diese Hypothesen wäre an Mischlingen von Wildbeuter-Völkern zu testen.


Arnold, H.: Fahrendes Volk: Randgruppen des Zigeunervolkes. Landau 1983, 2. Aufl., S. 148-152 und 201 sowie Fußnote 170

Darlington, C. D.: Die Entwicklung des Menschen und der Gesellschaft. Düsseldorf 1971, S. 25

Finger, O.: Studie an zwei asozialen Zigeunermischlingssippen. Gießen 1937

Schneider, E.: Niedergang und Aufstieg einer Vagantenfamilie. 1929 (Manuskript im Besitz von Pro Juventute in Zürich)

Vekerdi, J.: On the social history of Gypsies. Acta Orient. Hung. 35 (1981) Fasc. 2-3

Prof. Dr. Hermann ARNOLD, Richthofenstr. 9, D- 76829 Landau/Pfalz

Die Zigeuner als erbliche soziale Unterschicht in Europa

Die Kriminalität von Zigeuner führt zu sozialen Konfikten