Here are some facts from two books that will help elaborate on the kind of Anti-Semitism that existed in countries outside Germany.
Poland was not at all fond of Jews, and this shouldn't be surprising, seeing as the Jews were also widely overrepresented in various professions:
Even as late as 1939, it was by no means clear that the Nazis were the worst anti-Semites in continental Europe. Nor was their racial state at this stage unique in the world.
In neighbouring Poland, for example, there was no shortage of newspaper articles that could equally well have appeared in the Nazi Vôlkische Beobachter. As early as August 1934, an author writing under the pseudonym 'Swastika' in the Catholic newspaper Pro Christo argued: 'We should count as a Jew not only the follower of the Talmud. . . but every human being who has Jewish blood in his veins . . . Only a person who can prove that there were no ancestors of Jewish race in his family for at least five generations can be considered to be genuinely Aryan.' 'Jews are so terribly alien to us, alien and unpleasant, that they are a race apart,' a contributor to Kultura wrote in September 1936. 'They irritate us and all their traits grate against our sensibilities. Their oriental impetuosity, argumentativeness, specific mode of thought, the set of their eyes, the shape of their ears, the winking of their eyelids, the line of their lips, everything. In families of mixed blood we detect the traces of these features to the third or forth generation and beyond.' Some nationalists like Stefan Kosicki, editor of the Gazeta Warszawaska, began calling for the expulsion of the Jews. Others went further. Already in December 1938 the daily Maty dziennik was calling for 'war' on the Jews, before 'the Jewish rope' strangled Poland. The National Democrat (Endek) leader Roman Dmowski prophesied an 'international pogrom of the Jews' which would bring an 'end to the Jewish chapter of history'. Nor was anti-Semitic violence purely verbal. There had already been pogroms in Wilno (Vilnius) in 1934, Grodno in 1935, Przytyk and Minsk in 1936 and Brzesc (Brest) in 1937. In 1936 Zygmunt Szymanowski, a professor of bacteriology at the University of Warsaw, was shocked by the conduct of Endek students in Warsaw and Lwôw, who assaulted Jewish students between lectures. In the mid-thirties, between one and two thousand Jews suffered injuries in attacks; perhaps as many as thirty were killed.
Neither the Catholic Church nor the Polish government wholly condoned such violence, it is true. Yet Cardinal Hlond's pastoral letter of February 1936 had scarcely been calculated to dampen down Polish anti-Semitism. 'It is a fact', he declared,
that Jews oppose the Catholic Church, are steeped in free-thinking, and represent the avant-garde of the atheist movement, the Bolshevik movement, and subversive action. The Jews have a disastrous effect on morality and their publishing-houses dispense pornography . . . Jews commit fraud, usury, and are involved in trade in human beings.
The temporal authorities were little better, despite the fact that the 1921 Constitution expressly ruled out discrimination on racial or religious grounds. In the 1920s Jews in the formerly Russian parts of the country had merely had to put up with the reluctance of the new regime to abolish what remained of the old Tsarist restrictions - many of which remained in force until as late as 1931 - and the inconvenience of the law banning work on Sundays. Worse was to come. The Camp of National Unity (OZN), founded in 1937 to mobilize popular support for Pilsudski's successors, aimed to achieve the 'Polonization' of industry, commerce and the professions at the expense of Jews, who were declared to be 'alien' to Poland. There is no question that Jews were disproportionately successful, particularly in higher education and the professions. Though by 1931 fewer than 9 per cent of the Polish population were Jewish, the proportion rose above 20 per cent in Polish universities. Jews accounted for 56 per cent of all private doctors in Poland, 43 per cent of all private teachers, 34 per cent of lawyers and 22 per cent of journalists. Official boycotts of Jewish businesses led to dramatic declines in the number of Jewish owned shops - in the Bialystok region from 92 per cent of all shops in 1932 to just 50 per cent six years later. Jews were driven out of the meat trade by bans on ritual slaughter; Jewish students were segregated in university classrooms; they were excluded from the legal profession. By 1937-8 their share of university enrolments had fallen to 7.5 per cent. By the end of 1938 it was the government's official policy to 'solve the Jewish question' by pressurizing Polish Jews into emigration. But that was scarcely an option for the many poor Jews in cities like Lodz, where over 70 per cent of Jewish families lived in a single room, often an attic or a cellar, and around a quarter were in receipt of charitable assistance.
Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West (New York: The Penguin Press, 2006), Pp. 270-272.
Anti-Semitism was also present in Romania as Ferguson goes on to note, briefly discussing the activities of the Romanian Iron Guard led by Corneliu Codreanu. He goes on to ask:
What of other European states? Italian fascism had not at first been notably anti-Semitic. Yet in 1938 Mussolini introduced legislation closely modelled on the Nuremberg Laws. France was still a democracy, but one shot through with anti-Semitic prejudice. 'Plutôt Hitler que Blum' ('Better Hitler than Blum') was not only a jibe at the Jewish Socialist Léon Blum, the French premier from 1936 until 1937, but also a prophecy of sorts. In Hungary the mood was similar. A Jewish child risked being stoned if left alone in the streets of Szombathely.
If the Jews could not feel safe in Europe, where else could they go? The English-speaking world was scarcely welcoming. The United States had been the first major country of European settlement to introduce immigration quotas in the 1920s, the culmination of a campaign for restriction dating back to the 1890s. As a result of new literacy requirements, quotas and other controls, the annual immigration rate fell from n.6 per thousand in the 1900s to 0.4 per thousand in the 1940s. Others followed the American example as the Depression bit: South Africa introduced quotas in 1930, while Australia, New Zealand and Canada had all introduced other kinds of restriction by 193 2. What the Jews of Europe needed was, of course, political asylum more than economic opportunity. But although large and influential Jewish communities existed in all these countries, there were countervailing tendencies at work. The restriction of immigration was never purely an economic matter, a question of unskilled native-born workers seeking to raise the drawbridge in the face of low-wage competitors. Racial prejudice also played a key role in identifying Jews (along with Southern Italians) as immigrants inferior to previous generations from the British Isles, Germany or Scandinavia. In the Anglophone world, anti-Semitism was a social if not a political phenomenon. Symptomatically, a Bill to admit 20,000 Jewish children to the United States was rejected by the Senate in 1939 and again in 1940.
Ibid., p. 273.
A.J.P. Taylor highlights the contradiction in British thinking about Germany, he shows us how they believed it was their right to pass moral judgement and deny Germans their rights to not only peruse self-determination within Germany itself (by choosing to back Hitler's government) but to then deny the right of self-determination for Germans in other countries, who were unhappy being minorities, all because they disapproved of Germany's government.
there was also a strong moral argument on the other side: the character of the German Government. Germany ceased to be a democratic country after Hitler became chancellor in January 1933. She was, in the contemporary phrase, a totalitarian state. [...] The Nazi dictatorship was no worse than that in some other countries, particularly in Soviet Russian with whom, all the same, the left were advocating an alliance. But events in Germany had once been democratic and law-abiding; Russia had not. It was Germany's lapse from her high estate which constituted her special crime.
A.J.P. Taylor, English History 1914-1945 (London: Book Club Associates, 1977), Pp. 418.
The argument then followed that Germany should be opposed, if not destroyed because she didn't, ironically, align herself with the same moral principles as the Democracies. One could cheekily remark that such an expectation is rather totalitarian. None of this changes the fact that Germany had no obligation to meet the expectations of Great Britain, France or the United States in order to demand equal treatment among the nations of the world to determine her own destiny and incorporate populations of Germans who were wrongfully separated from their brethren back into the German national fold. The Democracies therefore, had to violate their own principles by denying these rights to the Germans, under the pretence that it was justified because Germany was not a Democracy. Yet clearly this shows how Democracies, like Dictatorships, have no obligation to consistently peruse their stated principles, and can actually rescind on their principles whenever it suits them. therefore making the demand Germany be a Democracy utterly worthless. Since clearly Democratic character didn't influence perceived Democratic actions. Of course, as Taylor notes, the irony is confounded by the fact that the British were most willing to ally with the Russians, a ruthless totalitarian terror state, to oppose Germany
because she was an alleged "totalitarian terror state". I guess this might be what's called "fighting fire with fire", but when one does fight fire with fire, they have consistent reasons for doing so that doesn't outright contradict their decision to use fire against itself. The British had no such consistency, and fully embraced the contradiction in courting the Soviet Union.
(I have commented on Niall Ferguson in this regard also, because he appeals to the same ridiculous Anglo-Centric narcissism which polluted the minds of Englishmen in the 1930s and still today: The Audacity of Niall Ferguson - His Bad Case Against Germany and apology for British War Mongering https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13127)Taylor says that Germany "lapsed", but this is irrelevant. German Democracy was new at the time it was introduced, and it utterly failed to function. On top of that, next to no Germans actually wanted a Democracy anyway, seeing as this was the case one cannot hold it against them for having "lapsed" if it meant giving them what they wanted under a Dictatorship which, like Hitler did, gave them a sense of national pride and stability. So again, the excuse that Germany was a "totalitarian state" and thus didn't deserve, under Democratic principles, to have the same rights as everyone else is yet another example of the Allies believing it's their right to decide what other nations should or shouldn't do. That they get to decide the character Germany should've had. They perused this ignorant belief until it culminated in the Second World War, where Germany was destroyed and again forced to be Democratic because it best suited whatever insurgent world order was being concocted by Globalists and Jews.
The French displayed a similar attitude towards Germany:
Concerning the vast majority of Frenchmen, something even more disheartening is the persistence of backwardness, of political fossilism, that consists in believing we can prevent the Germans from having a government according to their own taste, and finally,that we can organize a new Europe, or simply our own security, without or against Germany. All these errors proceed from a presumptuous ignorance, not only about Germany, but about modern Europe and the world in General: an ignorance carefully maintained by an idiotic and mercenary press.
Louis Bertrand, Hitler: A View of the 1935 Reichsparteitag by a Member of the Académie Française (Author House), Pp. xviii.
But why go on this tangent? Because the British not only held inner contradictions regarding their supposed Democratic principles, but also on their treatment of the Jews:
Englishmen of all classes and of all parties were offended by the Nazi treatment of the Jews. Here again, Jews were treated as badly in other countries, and often worse—in Poland, for example, with whom, nevertheless, Great Britain remained on friendly terms. For that matter, there was a good deal of quiet anti-semitism in England. Jews were kept out of many social organizations such as gold clubs, and some of the most famous public schools exercised a numerus clausus against them. Indeed, until Hitler's time Germany had probably been an easier country than most for Jews to rise high in industry and the professions. Once more, it was the reversion to barbarism almost as much as the barbarism itself which made Nazi Germany peculiarly hateful, and some English people were no doubt the more annoyed at having to repudiate the anti-semitism which they had secretly cherished.
A.J.P. Taylor, English History 1914-1945 (London: Book Club Associates, 1977), Pp. 419.
Taylor on the same page goes on to talk about how the Jews in Germany were different because they weren't as poor as Jews in Poland or Russia, that the German Jews were much more cultured is what made the British angry, because they weren't "just any" Jews so to speak. When they entered Britain, he says, they were like "walking propaganda" against the National Socialists.
You can make the connection that because the Jews had it easy prior to the advent of Hitler, that this is what caused the virulent German anti-semitism to arise. Because the Jews had entrenched themselves in Germany and her economic/political institutions to such an extent that they were vastly over-represented in proportion to their percentage of the population. The Jews were in control of much of the media and culture in Germany, while the Germans themselves had become almost second class citizens to these Talmudic parasites. In fact, Robert Gellately echos a similar sentiment, but from a fiercely philo-semitic perspective:
Indeed, until the late 1930s, as many Jews who lived through those times have testified, antisemitism was not the primary concern of the public, most Germans were not rabidly antisemitic, and pushing out the Jews was not the top priority of the German state.16 At the start of the Third Reich, as many Jews who lived there have testified for years on end, they were not social outsiders, certainly not in comparison with pre-emancipation times, and things changed slowly for many of them.17 Jews in Germany were almost universally envied by the Jews in central and eastern Europe, and throughout the Weimar years, and to some extent even earlier, they had more social opportunities (as judges and professors, for example) than most Jews enjoyed even in the United States. Since the legal emancipation of Germany’s Jews in 1871, they had become increasingly well integrated as law-abiding citizens who adopted middle-class values of hard work, clean living, and solid family values.
Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany (Oxford University Press, 2001), Pp. 4-5.
It appears to be the case that Jews weren't really welcome anywhere, and for good reasons. How much of this is exaggerated to suit a Jewish victim narrative must also be kept in mind, especially as it's used to further justify Jewish power in white countries, which is used to disenfranchise white people from determining our own destinies. So if there was no "legacy of Anti-Semitism" outside of Germany during this time, then the Jews would have trouble comparing white racial consciousness, and self-affirmation to "the Nazis". They need to make sure that white pride is associated with National Socialist Germany, and furthermore, to inhibit whites from seeing that National Socialism is actually the key to our own salvation.
