The Oxford English Dictionary defines nation as “a distinct race or people, characterized by common descent, language or history, usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory.” Nationalism in turn may be defined as a sense of identity as a people, and the efforts resulting to foster this and to obtain recognition as a distinct population, bound by common historical, cultural, linguistic, political, religious or other ties in the eyes of the larger society.

While in the broadest sense the term “nation” may apply to a non-politically autonomous ethnic group consisting of only a few hundred individuals (cf. the West African or Native American use of the word as an equivalent to “tribe”), it is most often used synonymously with the notion of an actual country, the existence of an independent geographical homeland being an integral part of its interpretation. However, as the dictionary definition indicates, this is usually, and therefore by implication not invariably, a defining criterion. There have been nations of people lacking a homeland (or a homeland allowing them access or control) throughout history. The pre-1948 Jewish population, for example, or the Palestinians in the present day. Bloody wars have been fought because of the existence of nations of people lacking their own autonomous territory.

It is into this latter category that the Romani nation fits and, though the efforts to secure a geographical homeland were central to the nationalist movement, especially during the 1930s and 1940s, the price paid for not having one has been heavy.

The 1952 edition of the Dictionary of the Czech Language defines “gypsy” as follows: “gypsy [with a small “g”]—a member of a wandering nation, a symbol of mendacity, theft, wandering,…jokers, liars, impostors and cheaters.” This definition was published two years after the Czechoslovak government outlawed any form of discrimination on the basis of color. As far as this writer recalls, the above definition expressed the popular understanding of the Gypsies as a group in the 1930s, in pre-World War II Czechoslovakia. Despite the persecution of the Gypsies during the war and the popular sympathy for them because of it, the prejudice against them have not disappeared and one can find its reflection in the official press as well as in conversations of the common people. Although one cannot generalize about members of any racial, national or religious group, it is evident from the official publications that most Gypsies pose certain problems for the regime and the society.

The following is a complete, unabridged translation of a document obtained in Moscow in 1989. The manifesto belongs to a Pamyat group that clearly shares many of the views of other groups outlined in my article published elsewhere in this issue, though it reveals a heavier emphasis on the Orthodox Church.

To great numbers of erstwhile Soviet citizens the Union is beyond salvation. No amount of patching can reform the Union politically. Proof of impending disunion is everywhere: the plebiscite of March 17, 1991, was boycotted by six republics formally, and millions refused to vote individually, even when members of local authorities agreed formally with the federal Parliament to participate as a group in the plebiscite.

Russian nationalists in the Soviet Union have, of course, always claimed to speak and act on behalf of the narod, the common folk, but the folk they have had in mind have been largely the inhabitants, and particularly the older inhabitants, of the fast-disappearing traditional Russian village. Aware that this narod has indeed been vanishing, Russian nationalist writers and publicists have stressed that the task at hand is to graft the “ethics and esthetics,” the accumulated wisdom and mores of this traditionalist populace, onto the life of deracinated modern Soviet man. The really existing and largely urbanized Russian narod—factory workers, miners, truck drivers, cashiers, and waitresses—has remained beyond the purview of most nationalists, with the exception of a few like the gifted writer and filmmaker Vasilii Shukshin (d. 1974), who focused upon the plight of a people torn away from its roots.

There have been Roma or Gypsies in Hungary for over 650 years. Historical records indicate that they entered Hungary between 1416 and 1417 from Transylvania during the reign of King Sigismund (1387–1437), though linguistic evidence indicates that they had begun to settle there earlier. In 1423, Sigismund granted the Gypsy leader, Ladislas, and his followers, certain rights of transit, and they began to flock to Hungary. Most settled in the outskirts of villages or towns, and became prominent in some parts of the country as blacksmiths.

From the outset, the Gypsies were subjected to varying degrees of discrimination. In the 18th century, Empress Maria Theresa (1740–1780), after Pope Clement XIII granted her the right to become Apostolic ruler of Hungary, adopted policies designed to force the Roma to assimilate into Hungarian society. She outlawed use of the word Cigány and decreed that Gypsies in the future be called “new citizen,” “new peasant,” or “new Hungarian.” In 1780, the government placed 8,388 Roma children in schools where they became wards of the state, and another 9,463 in foster homes. Within a few years, all of them had run away from these institutions or the families. The Gypsies responded with some outbreaks of violence in certain areas, though in most instances they simply left Hungary for other parts of Europe.

In discussion of ethnic minorities in Eastern Europe, one hears regularly of appalling official misbehavior—not just about attempted genocide (though that too), but also about bureaucratic cruelties inflicted in every field of human activity and at every level of control. Nonetheless, it is always useful to have a measurable basis for assessing unfairness; and historians have the special task of inquiring rationally why and how unfairness came about. Hence the following paper, which attempts not just to condemn, but to explain and evaluate the Hungarian and Czechoslovak official treatment of the Gypsies in recent decades. As is fairly well known, this treatment has included not only harassment of populations which presently exceed 600,000 people in each country, but also (in both countries) systematic abduction of children by the state from unwilling Gypsy parents, and (in Czechoslovakia) equally systematic sterilization of Gypsy women.

Since the point of the paper is to reach beyond mere indictment, I will use a comparative method. Specifically, in recounting each stage of the development of policy towards the Gypsies I will compare what was being done to two other groups: the Jews, on the one hand, and the physically disabled on the other.

Clearly, what we have in the Soviet Union is a condition of continuity and change. We have radicals who see the Communist Party as an overwhelmingly dominant force, even omnipotent. We have former Communists, like Yeltsin, decrying the Communist Party as an “enemy within” to be overcome. At the same time, Yeltsin has recently joined with Gorbachev because he sees other enemies even more powerful. On the other hand, we have conservatives who have taken the place of reformers (at Gorbachev's initiative) at the Center, who, as they have regained power and influence at the Center, have become not appeased, but increasingly dissatisfied; who have decried what they feel is the loss of power by the Communist Party; who have denounced Gorbachev's leadership virulently. And yet, they too, at the last minute, decided to make common cause and refused to accept his resignation, even though many of them, like the radicals, had called for just that. What is going on? Is the Party integrating the system or not?

Since May 1987 when the Russian nationalist group Pamyat sponsored a number of demonstrations in Moscow, it has been roundly condemned in both the Soviet and Western media for its self-declared anti-Zionism and alleged antisemitism. This rare unanimity of usually opposite views should warrant a pause for sound skepticism and thoughtful analysis. Strangely enough, while Western reaction to Pamyat has been long on condemnation, it remains short on analysis and on understanding of both Pamyat and its condemnation in the Soviet press.

The Patriotic Front Pamyat has received a name recognition and notoriety in the Soviet and western academic literature and press which is unrivaled to this day by any other Russian nationalist organization. The vast majority of observers view Pamyat as a neo-fascist or neo-Stalinist movement. This view of Pamyat is often reenforced by drawing links between the Front and conservatives in the Party and bureaucracy. Thus, many see Pamyat either as a vehicle for conservative reaction from “above” or as a manifestation from “below” of a significant segment of the Russian population opposed to the decentralizing, liberalizing, and westernizing tendencies of perestroika. More often than not, Pamyat is viewed as both.

Gypsies are one of the most famous though least known national minorities, representatives of which can be found in many countries. Several works have been written about them but no analysis has yet been made of the interrelationship between Gypsies and the nationalities among whom they live. An analysis of this kind is timely in that it would give governments a means with which to alleviate ethnic tensions by amending their present faulty nationality minority policies.

The author of this article has recently made a detailed sociological study by means of a lengthy questionnaire of the attitudes of various nationality groups towards each other in Ukraine. Included in it are questions either directly or indirectly relating to the Gypsies. This ethnic group, despite its relatively small size, is well known throughout Ukraine. Gypsies stand out from the rest of the population by their way of life and by their appearance; as a rule, they speak their own language, even though they know the languages of other nationalities. Most of the population of Ukraine comes in contact with Gypsies, though most often with their worst representatives (swindlers, extortionists, etc.). They meet these Gypsies in the most populous places—at railroad stations, outside large stores, and in marketplaces.

If the years 1988–1990 showed Gorbachev the difficul ties of governing a federation of republics whose titular majorities relentlessly strove for greater autonomy, even independence, then the last twelve months demonstrated to him the complexities of managing a federation of multiethnic republics (Appendix 3) whose minorities were no less determined to gain their share of self-rule and to pursue their particular interests. The signs of a potentially destabilizing problem were visible already prior to last April: the June 1989 incident in the Fergana valley in which Meskhetians were attacked by Uzbeks, and the long-smoldering Nagorno-Karabakh affair pitting an Armenian minority against the Azerbaijani majority. These are but two examples of bitter and violent interethnic strife percolating just beneath the surface of multiethnic societies throughout the Soviet Union.

Two main concepts of a new Union and its genesis emerged in 1990–1991. Gorbachev conceived of a close-bound “vertical” federation, such as depicted in the draft Union treaty published March, 9, 1991, to be produced under the leadership of the Center, in consultation with the republics. The nationalist opposition in the nine prospective states of the new Union conceived of a decentralized confederation emerging out of a “horizontal” compact among equals. The two approaches involved clashing concepts of the right of self-determination as to both process and substance.

For veterans of the Russian winter, the term “thaw” will ever remain an appropriate metaphor for the waning of periods of control and repression. Unfortunately, many Soviet political thaws have given way quickly to resurgent winters. Perhaps most significant in the current Soviet thaw, the policies of glasnost and perestroika associated with Mikhail Gorbachev, has been the extent to which Soviet society has been invited to participate in it. Society, in its turn, has responded with the creation of numerous grassroots, unofficial social-action groups (samodeiatelnye obshchestvennye organizatsii).