Correspondence: Gypsies And The Holocaust

The following two articles provide a classic example of the tension that exists within current historiography of the Holocaust. Both seek to define the Holocaust upon different criteria, of which ultimately devalues different groups that experienced Nazi persecution. Sybil Milton’s, “Gypsies and the Holocaust” details the history of the Gypsies under the Nazi movement. Milton’s article is a convincing argument for the inclusion of the Gypsies and as a by-product, the handicapped, as victims of the Holocaust. Milton provides a detailed history of the Nazi treatment of the Gypsies, from their placement in Zigeunerlager (special internment camps for Gypsies) prior to 1939, to their biological registration, relocation, incarceration in concentration
Milton’s defense of her previous article in “Correspondence: Gypsies and The Holocaust” is largely similar. However, for the purpose of my essay, a statement of Milton’s is significant. Milton states that the murder of the Gypsies and the handicapped should be considered to be a part of the Holocaust as they were targeted by the Nazi’s on the basis of race.[7] For Milton, this differentiates the Jews, Gypsies and handicapped from other victims of the Nazi’s including, “political opponents, members of the resistance and elites of conquered nations,” and more significantly, from, “Poles, Czechs and Serbs.”[8] In her efforts to give validation and recognition to the experiences of Gypsies and the handicapped, Milton, as with Bauer, denigrates the experiences of other
In her defence, Milton makes such a definition on available documentary evidence. As she notes, 93.5% of the Gypsies incarcerated in Auschwitz died: “this figure hardly applies to Poles, Czechs or Serbs.”[9] (Notably, Milton does not mention the other group under study in this essay, homosexuals.) However, Milton has fallen into the ethical trap of Holocaust studies: any definition that excludes necessarily devalues certain groups by exclusion; however, all-encompassing inclusion is also in danger of devaluing groups which were persecuted with more intensity than others. Indeed, the study of the Holocaust is a deeply ethical subject. As Herman Von Ver Dunk has noted, Holocaust studies have a commemorative role: “it serves to strengthen the bonds of solidarity among victims and their descendants.”[10] Indeed, it can be said that the term, “Holocaust”, can become central to the identity to the various groups who were victims of Nazi persecution. Thus, in conclusion, I have made it clear that I consider both Bauer’s and Milton’s definition of the Holocaust to be problematic; however, it would seem that any definition of the Holocaust