International Political Science Review (2004), Vol 25, No.

1, 35–53

Anti-Semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust

WILLIAM I. BRUSTEIN AND RYAN D. KING

ABSTRACT. It is commonly accepted that the years 1899–1939 represent a

highpoint in anti-Semitism in western societies. What factors account for
the wave of extraordinary anti-Semitism after 1899? Was the rise of anti-
Semitism between 1899 and the Holocaust uneven? Did anti-Semitism
vary in content and intensity across societies? Did Germans embrace anti-
Semitism differently from French, Italian, Romanian, and British
citizens? Data drawn from the annual volumes of the American Jewish Year
Book are used to examine these questions systematically. Pooled time-
series analyses suggest that variation in anti-Semitism over time and
across countries was largely a function of economic conditions and
Jewish immigration, and to a limited extent of the rise of leftist parties.
Keywords: • Anti-Semitism • Europe • Holocaust • Prejudice

Delegates from 32 countries met in the French resort town of Evian-les-Bains

between 6 July and 14 July 1938 to discuss ways to help Jewish refugees fleeing the
Nazi Third Reich. In the months following Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria
in March 1938, Nazi persecution of Jews in the Third Reich reached horrifying
dimensions. Nazi Germany had offered its Jews to the world. Many delegates
attending the Evian Conference publicly professed their sympathies for the Jewish
refugees. However, most countries, including the USA, Great Britain, and Australia,
offered excuses for why they could not accept more refugees. The official
delegates from Romania, Hungary, and Poland proposed that their countries also
be relieved of their Jews. Only the representatives of the Dominican Republic, and
later Costa Rica, agreed to increase their quotas. That the world seemed to turn its
back on the German and Austrian Jewish refugees, not surprisingly, provided the
Nazi regime’s anti-Semitic campaign with a propaganda bonanza (Morse, 1968:
214; Weiss, 1996: 331; Friedlaender, 1997: 248–50; Marrus, 1985: 167–9).
The failure of the delegates at the Evian Conference to aid European Jewry was
not exceptional as an example of worldwide indifference to the fate of European
Jews on the eve of the Holocaust. For in the aftermath of the Evian Conference,
DOI: 10.1177/0192512104038166 © 2004 International Political Science Association
SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
36 International Political Science Review 25(1)

indifference to the fate of Europe’s Jews included the following: the unwillingness
of Hungary and Czechoslovakia to give refuge to the expelled Sudetenland Jews;
the American failure to pass the Wagner-Rogers Child Refugee Bill that would
have admitted to the USA 20,000 Jewish refugee children from Europe and the US
refusal to admit the 936 German-Jewish refugees aboard the ill-fated ship, the St.
Louis; Great Britain’s decision to close off Palestine to Jewish immigration; and the
reneging on pledges made by Argentina and Brazil to Papal authorities to accept
baptized Jews into their countries (Friedlaender, 1997: 265–6, 299–300; Mosse,
1985: 231; Marrus, 1985: 285–9).
These examples of insensitivity toward persecuted European Jews on the eve of
the Holocaust raise a number of important questions regarding anti-Semitism. It is
commonly accepted that the years 1899–1939 are a highpoint in anti-Semitism in
western societies (Weinberg, 1986; Bernstein, 1996). What factors account for the
wave of extraordinary anti-Semitism after 1899? Was the rise of anti-Semitism
between 1899 and the Holocaust steady or uneven? Did popular anti-Semitism
vary in content and intensity across societies? If so, why? Did ordinary Germans
embrace anti-Semitism in a way that ordinary Americans, British, French, Polish,
and Romanian citizens did not, as has been suggested in a number of recent works
on German anti-Semitism (Goldhagen, 1996; Weiss, 1996)?1 How does anti-
Semitism differ from other forms of religious, racial, or ethnic prejudice?
With one notable exception (Fein, 1979), scholars have given minimal
attention to a systematic and empirically based national comparison of popular
anti-Semitism before 1945.2 The scholarly literature on anti-Semitism typically
involves an examination of anti-Semitism within a particular nation (Ascheim,
1981; Birnbaum, 1992; Butnaru, 1992; Byrnes, 1950; Canepa, 1989; Dinnerstein,
1994; Fischer-Galati, 1974; Fitch, 1992; Friedlaender, 1997; Goldhagen, 1996;
Higham, 1988; Holmes, 1979; Iancu, 1978; Kershaw, 1983; Lebzelter, 1978;
Mandle, 1968; Marrus, 1971; Marrus and Paxton, 1981; Massing, 1949; Michaelis,
1978; Mosse, 1970; Niewyk, 1980; Oldson, 1991; Pulzer, 1992; Sternhell, 1985;
Vago, 1993; Volovici, 1991; Weiss, 1996; Wilson, 1982; Zuccotti, 1987) or a
nonsystematic and nonempirical analysis of anti-Semitism across several countries
(Almog, 1990; Bergmann, 1992; Ettinger, 1988; Grosser and Halperin, 1978; Katz,
1980; Langmuir, 1987; Lindemann, 1991, 1997; Marrus, 1982, 1985; Mosse, 1985;
Weinberg, 1986; Wistrich, 1991).
Though persecution of Jews has a history of at least two millennia, the late-19th
and early-20th century witnessed a high-water mark in hatred against Jews,
especially in western Christian societies (Pauley, 1992; Katz, 1980; Byrnes, 1950;
Hirshfield, 1981; Lindemann, 1991, 1997; Marrus, 1985; Mosse, 1985; Weiss, 1996;
Almog, 1990; Arendt, 1975). How have scholars tried to explain the rise of anti-
Semitism in Europe after 1899 and the differences in the intensity of anti-
Semitism among various European societies? A number of the popular
explanations for the rise of anti-Semitism have analogs in the literature on ethnic
prejudice. In particular, theories of modernization, relative deprivation, ethnic
competition, and of scapegoating or frustration-aggression prevail as explanations
of the rise of anti-Semitism.
Much of the scholarly literature emphasizes the role of modernization to
explain the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. Accordingly, modernization embodied
the emergence of liberalism and capitalism, which among other things, led to the
political, social, and economic emancipation of Jews. Jewish social mobility and
Jewish competition elicited fears among many non-Jews, reinforcing anti-Semitic
 BRUSTEIN/KING: Anti-Semitism in Europe 37

attitudes. The underlying argument within the modernization thesis is that the
losers (either social groups or nations) in the modernization process tend to
harbor the strongest anti-Semitic beliefs (Lindemann, 1991, 1997; Fein, 1987;
Almog, 1990; Strauss, 1993).3 Arendt (1975) provides an interesting variant to the
modernization thesis. Modernization for Arendt included the transformation of
the role of Jews in European societies. By the end of the 19th century, European
states became less dependent on wealthy Jewish financiers and Jews experienced a
new status characterized by a loss of real power while remaining holders of major
wealth. For Arendt, the inconsistency between insignificant power and phenomenal
wealth created within the general public the image of Jews as a despised parasitical
social group. Arendt cites as evidence that the greatest periods of modern anti-
Semitism coincided with decline in Jewish influence (1975: 4–5). While the
modernization thesis seemingly provides a plausible explanation for the rise of
anti-Semitism in Europe after 1879, it fails to offer a convincing argument for
temporal and spatial variation in anti-Semitism. For instance, the modernization
thesis cannot explain why popular anti-Semitism in Europe climbed significantly
during the 1880s and 1890s, but fell dramatically in Europe between 1900 and
1914 to rise again to new heights in the early 1920s and mid-to-late 1930s or why
levels of popular anti-Semitism tended to be higher in Romania and Germany
than in Great Britain and Italy.
A popular explanation for the rise of anti-Semitism is the scapegoat theory.
Proponents of the scapegoat theory posit that Jews constituted a minority group
dispersed among many countries and served as convenient targets for the
majority’s problems (Katz, 1980: 247; Ettinger, 1988: 4–7; Fein, 1979: 84–98).
Advocates of the scapegoat theory hold that in times of national crisis, people
instinctively seek groups upon whom to assign blame for their misfortunes
(Blalock, 1967; Marrus, 1982). European societies certainly experienced
significant trauma after 1879, including major wars and a series of economic and
social upheavals, and for many groups, Jews became the objects of their frustration
and aggression (Andreski, 1963).4 But the scapegoat thesis fails to inform us why
Jews rather than other minorities became scapegoats for national distress or why
in certain societies where Jews were present, other groups served as scapegoats.
For instance, in interwar Romania, persecution of Jews far exceeded the harass-
ment that fell upon other Romanian minorities, including Germans, Hungarians,
Bulgarians, and Greeks, while in post-World War I Italy during a period of
dramatic political and economic turmoil, Italian Jews remained untouched by
events and anti-Semitism was relatively non-existent.
Pierre Birnbaum (1992) offers a very different theory of the rise of anti-
Semitism and of anti-Semitic variation among societies. Birnbaum attributes the
rise of modern anti-Semitism to popular reaction against the strong state. Where a
strong state is perceived as having imposed on society the emancipation of the
Jews, anti-Semitism tends to be strong (for example, Germany and France). On
the other hand, where the state is relatively weak and Jews obtained equal rights
through society rather than the state, anti-Semitism tends to be muted (for
example, the USA and Great Britain) (Birnbaum, 1992: 6–10, 227–8). But how
would Birnbaum’s theory explain temporal variation in popular anti-Semitism?
For instance, most scholars distinguish between the periods of high popular anti-
Semitism in France (1890s and 1930s) and the periods of low popular anti-
Semitism (1904–30). It makes little sense to argue that the French state was
significantly weaker between 1904 and 1930 than during the 1890s. Alternatively,
38 International Political Science Review 25(1)

how would Birnbaum make sense of the extraordinarily high levels of popular
anti-Semitism in Romania—a country in which the state refused to grant the Jews
civil rights until after World War I and then only after considerable pressure from
the victorious nations at Versailles?
An emphasis on the role of distinct political cultures as an explanation for
national variation in anti-Semitism is implicit in two recent books on Germans and
the Holocaust. Weiss (1996: viii), in accounting for the magnitude and breadth of
modern German anti-Semitism, points to a “powerful culture of racism” existing
in Germany. Goldhagen (1996) sees German anti-Semitism as a unique force
throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries. For Goldhagen (1996: 32, 54),
anti-Semitism was an axiom of German culture which provided Germans with “a
model of cultural coherence.” In Germany, anti-Semitism embodied an “elimina-
tionist” ideology interpreting Jewish influence as naturally destructive and
advocating the irrevocable elimination of Jewish influence from society
(Goldhagen, 1996: 48). Unfortunately, neither Weiss nor Goldhagen systematically
examine non-German political cultures and non-German anti-Semitism. More-
over, their distinct political-culture models fail to explain temporal variation in
German anti-Semitism. Numerous scholars of German anti-Semitism have pointed
to the ebb and flow of German anti-Semitism between 1814 and 1945.
We suggest that theories of anti-Semitism that emphasize characteristics of the
state, cultures, and modernization take us a long way in explaining anti-Semitism.
However, these theories run into some trouble in terms of explaining temporal
or spatial variation in anti-Semitism. The scapegoat theory clearly explains
(theoretically) temporal variation, but is short of explaining why Jews are selected
as opposed to other groups and places a great importance on economic
conditions and less emphasis on, for example, political aspects of anti-Semitism.
We seek to take extant research a step further by attempting to account for
temporal and spatial variation in European anti-Semitism.
From the perspective of this article what made anti-Semitism different from
other forms of xenophobia or dislike of minorities is that Jew hatred is more
multifaceted than other kinds of prejudice. White prejudice against blacks
typically embraced a racial form of dislike, while persecution of Armenians and
Greeks in Bulgaria usually revolved around economic fears, and antipathy toward
Irish Catholics or Italian Catholics in the USA during the 19th century largely took
a form of religious hatred. Popular anti-Semitism, by contrast, incorporated
religious, economic, racial, and political prejudice. Consequently, Jews were
disliked and feared for their religious beliefs and attitudes, their so-called racial
characteristics, perceived economic behavior and power, and their assumed
leadership or support of subversive political and social movements. That popular
anti-Semitism embodied numerous forms may help explain why Jews rather than
other minorities were frequently sought out as scapegoats or useful targets during
periods of both worldwide and national difficulties. It may also help explain why
other traditional “middlemen groups” such as the Greeks in the Balkans, the Syro-
Lebanese in West Africa and Latin America, the Parsis in India, and the Scots in
South Africa and many parts of Canada rarely experienced the magnitude of
persecution encountered by Jews (Zenner, 1987: 256–7). Yet, we should not
conclude that where Jewish minorities exist, they must always be singled out for
condescension during times of crisis. For example, during the tumultuous years
preceding the fascist takeover in Italy, Jews were rarely targeted for Italy’s ills.
 BRUSTEIN/KING: Anti-Semitism in Europe 39

Spatial and Temporal Variation in Popular Anti-Semitism

To account for the rise of popular anti-Semitism between 1899 and 1939, we focus
on the evolution and popularization of the four strains of anti-Semitism. The four
strains (religious, racial, economic, and political) contain within themselves four
distinct anti-Semitic narratives.5 The evolution of the four narratives of anti-
Semitism provided anti-Semites with ample ammunition to wage their war against
Jews during the late-19th and early-20th centuries. However, the presence of
religious, racial, economic, and political narratives about Jews cannot sufficiently
explain the dramatic explosion of anti-Semitism in western societies on the eve of
the Holocaust or variation in anti-Semitism across space and time. European
societies varied in terms of their popular anti-Semitism. Our model suggests that
in societies and periods in which Jews were perceived as a greater religious, racial,
economic, and political threat or challenge to non-Jews, popular anti-Semitism
should have attained higher levels. What factors may account for changes in the
perception of Jews as a threat to non-Jews? We propose that what ignited the four
anti-Semitic narratives as well as what helps explain the temporal and spatial
variation in popular anti-Semitism are the effects of four critical factors: deteriora-
tion in a nation’s economic well-being, the impact of increased immigration of
eastern European Jews, the growth of popular support for the political left, and
the extent to which leadership of the political left was identified with Jews.
A decline in a nation’s economic well-being should produce higher levels of
anti-Jewish feelings. This should be the case particularly in an environment in
which Jews are seen as controlling or owning major economic resources and
perceived as economically superior. On the other hand, we should not expect to
find high rates of anti-Semitic sentiments in times of economic stability or growth
or in situations in which Jews are not perceived to be in positions of dominance
within a nation’s economy. Increased levels of eastern European Jewish immi-
gration should affect popular anti-Semitism in several ways. Since many of the new
Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe possessed few resources and little formal
education, they typically competed with many in the host population for low-
paying jobs. Competition often bred animosity, resulting in heightened levels of
anti-Semitism.6 The new Yiddish-speaking arrivals from eastern Europe’s Jewish
ghettos (Ashkenazic Jews) with their strange customs and religious practices
frequently struck western European non-Jews as a very different sort of Jew than
the more assimilated Sephardic Jews who had lived in the West for centuries. The
influx of eastern European Jews should have fueled the negative racial stereotypes
existing within western European culture and, thereby, contributed to growing
anti-Semitism. Particularly in the aftermath of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution,
many European non-Jews associated recent eastern European Jewish immigrants
with Bolshevism. Given that many of these Jewish immigrants appeared
impoverished, had fled persecution, and came from the former Russian empire,
they were perceived to favor parties of the political left. What made matters worse
for Jews were the numerous press reports in the West claiming that Jews were over-
represented in the leadership of the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party. For
many Europeans, Bolshevism gravely threatened the existing social, economic,
and religious order. Anti-Bolshevik tendencies fed anti-Semitic attitudes. Anti-
Semites had often accused Jews of seeking retribution against non-Jews by plotting
to seize power. Many anti-Semites cited Jews as the founders of revolutionary
socialism and anarchism and saw the hand of Jews in periodic labor unrest. Thus,
40 International Political Science Review 25(1)

we should expect to see increased anti-Semitism in societies where the political left
exhibits growing strength and where prominent leftist leaders were identified as
Jews. However, where support for the political left is weak or declining or where
Jews are not seen as playing important roles in the left, we should expect lower
levels of anti-Semitism.
Our study examines popular anti-Semitism, which refers to hostility (as
expressed in sentiments, attitudes, or actions) rooted in the general population
toward Jews as a collectivity, between the years 1899 and 1939. Others have
suggested the year 1879 constitutes an appropriate embarkation point for a study
of popular anti-Semitism in that it coincides with the emergence of political
parties and a press embracing a comprehensive anti-Semitic ideology and is also
the year in which Wilhelm Marr first coined the term “anti-Semitism” in his
pamphlet The Victory of Judaism over Germanism (Weinberg, 1986: 93; Bernstein,
1996: 49; Dimont, 1962: 313). While we agree that 1879 is an ideal starting point,
we begin our study in 1899 for data-collection purposes (explained in more detail
below). The year 1939 will serve as the endpoint of this study, for that eventful year
witnessed the outbreak of World War II and a qualitatively new phase in anti-
Semitism leading to the near annihilation of European Jewry.
A comparative study of popular anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust
could easily include any number of European countries. For compelling reasons
we have chosen to examine popular anti-Semitism in Germany, Great Britain,
France, Italy, and Romania. The inclusion of these five countries appeals for a
number of important reasons. Each of these countries was politically autonomous
during the years between 1899 and 1939 and each permitted contested elections
for much of the period (Italy’s last free election occurred in 1921 and Germany’s
last free election occurred in 1932). By including Italy we have the added
advantage of a society much like Germany in that it too accomplished its
unification relatively late and it too came under fascist rule during the interwar
period. Moreover, the list of countries offer what many scholars assume (for
example, Fein, 1979) to be a wide range of anti-Semitism: Germany and Romania
ranked as high, France ranked as intermediate, and Italy and Great Britain ranked
as low. This sample also includes significant variation in levels of economic
development (Great Britain and Germany being quite advanced and Italy and
Romania less developed) and religious denomination (Great Britain and Germany
being largely Protestant, France and Italy predominantly Roman Catholic, and
Romania largely Orthodox). There are a large number of other European
countries, including Hungary, Poland, Russia, and Austria, that would have been
ideal candidates for a comparative study of anti-Semitism in Europe before the
Holocaust. Unfortunately, these countries were not included in this study because
they were not politically autonomous for the entire period of the study or they
reappeared after World War I as a significantly different political or national entity.
Lastly, our choice of cases was limited by the unavailability of data for many
countries whose boundaries were dramatically transformed in the aftermath of
World War I.

Data and Measures

Analyzing anti-Semitism across time and space required a data source with anti-
Semitic information sorted by year and country. We, thus, systematically examined
the volumes of the American Jewish Year Book (AJYB). The AJYB has been published
 BRUSTEIN/KING: Anti-Semitism in Europe 41

annually since 1899 and contains a section dedicated to summarizing leading news
events of the previous year from around the world.7 Among the information on
Jews provided by the AJYB are promotions of prominent Jews, obituaries for
popular Jewish figures, special religious events, changes in laws pertaining to Jews,
and accounts of violence and discrimination against Jews. We derive our
information from the latter two accounts. Specifically, we systematically read the
annual accounts of Jewish issues that happened in or pertained to Great Britain,
France, Germany, Italy, and Romania between 1899 and 1939. While reading the
accounts from the AJYB, we made note of all anti-Semitic acts and sorted them by
country, year, and type of act. Our typology consisted of 13 categories ranging
from false accusations against Jews to murderous riots (see Table 1 for the
typology). Occasionally, we encountered an act that could realistically fit into
more than one category. In this case, we generally went with the more serious
category or further examined the context of the act. For instance, a serious assault
within a riot could be tallied as a violent act, but since the assault was in the
context of a riot we recorded the act as a “riot resulting in physical injury to Jews.”
Many acts did not fit neatly into a specified category, but clearly discriminated
against Jews in some fashion. Instead of creating many new categories with very
small numbers, we elected to group these acts into a general category titled “laws
and acts of discrimination” (see Table 1). Our examination of the AJYB resulted in
1295 anti-Semitic acts in five countries over a 41-year period (1899–1939).8
Although the AJYB is a rich source of information on anti-Semitism, we do
acknowledge the limitations of our data. For instance, it is possible that the editors
of the volumes reported events that they found significant. Moreover, the reports of
events from around the world were sent to the editors by local and national Jewish
organizations and the accuracy of the reports may have some reliability problems.
Nevertheless, we feel the information contained in the AJYB is the most useful data
available to assess the frequency and nature of European anti-Semitism before the
Holocaust.
Although we could partition our typology in Table 1 into categories
corresponding to the four forms of anti-Semitism mentioned earlier (for example,
laws or acts against Jewish practices largely conform to religious anti-Semitism and
boycotts against Jewish businesses conform to economic anti-Semitism, and so on),
these categories would not necessarily be mutually exclusive and our argument
posits that all forms of anti-Semitism should vary by a country’s economic well-
being, Jewish immigration, and electoral support for leftist parties. Thus, we
include all anti-Semitic acts from Table 1 in our analysis.9
We measure economic well-being within the respective countries using gross
domestic product (GDP). Specifically, we measure GDP as total GDP per capita for a
given year, expressed in units of 1000. The GDP per capita is given in 1990 dollars
and is drawn largely from Maddison (1995) and Good and Ma (1998). While
yearly GDP data were available for four of the countries, Romanian GDP figures are
yearly only from 1925 to 1940, and are decennial for the period prior to 1925.
Where data were not available, we interpolated the GDP figures based on the
nearest preceding and proceeding figures.
Our measure of Jewish immigration reflects the change in the percentage of
Jews residing in a country from the previous year. We used the change in percentage,
as opposed to raw numbers, to standardize the immigration variable. This standard-
ized variable helps account for both subtle and dramatic shifts in the general popula-
tion relative to Jewish immigration, for instance, when Romania acquired Southern
 TABLE 1. Types of Anti-Semitic Acts in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Romania, 1899–1939

42
Country
Type of Anti-Semitic Act Great Britain France Germany Italy Romania Total
Laws/acts of discrimination*# 8 (11%) 1 (2%) 195 (28%) 11 (28%) 75 (17%) 290 (22%)
Laws/acts forcing Jews to leave posts, 8 (11%) 3 (6%) 164 (23%) 6 (15%) 44 (10%) 225 (17%)
appointments, or lose businesses*
Riots with vandalism, destruction of 4 (6%) 1 (2%) 20 (3%) 0 (0%) 91 (21%) 116 (9%)
property, physical assault and/or murder
Formation of anti-Semitic groups, protest 7 (10%) 4 (8%) 54 (8%) 3 (8%) 36 (8%) 104 (8%)

International Political Science Review 25(1)

speeches, leafleting
Laws/acts against Jewish immigration or 2 (3%) 7 (14%) 56 (8%) 0 (0%) 36 (8%) 101 (8%)
naturalization; expulsions, citizenship
reversals or deportation*
Riots and demonstrations (no violence or 7 (10%) 10 (20%) 27 (4%) 0 (0%) 46 (11%) 90 (7%)
vandalism reported)
Media attacks 19 (26%) 11 (22%) 39 (6%) 12 (31%) 6 (1%) 87 (7%)
Laws/acts against Jewish practices* 5 (7%) 4 (8%) 35 (5%) 1 (3%) 20 (5%) 65 (5%)
Violent acts on people; murder 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 22 (3%) 0 (0%) 41 (10%) 64 (5%)
Raids, confiscations, or shutdowns; 2 (3%) 2 (4%) 29 (4%) 2 (5%) 8 (2%) 43 (3%)
dissolved organizations
Vandalism or destruction of property 7 (10%) 1 (2%) 20 (3%) 0 (0%) 13 (3%) 41 (3%)
False accusations, arrest, or imprisonment 2 (3%) 3 (6%) 21 (3%) 4 (10%) 5 (1%) 35 (3%)
Boycotts or strikes 2 (3%) 1 (2%) 21 (3%) 0 (0%) 10 (2%) 34 (3%)
Total 73 (100%) 49 (100%) 703 (100%) 39 (100%) 431 (100%) 1,295 (100%)

Note: Column percentages are in parentheses.

Source: American Jewish Year Book.
* Laws/acts include government laws and mandates as well as acts committed by members of the general public.
# “Laws/acts of discrimination” include laws and acts that did not fit neatly into other, more specific, categories of discrimination. For example, this category
includes actions by organizations prohibiting those of “Jewish blood” from taking part in an event. Where more information was provided, we placed laws
and acts in the more specific categories (categories 2 through 13).
 BRUSTEIN/KING: Anti-Semitism in Europe 43

Dobrudja, Bessarabia, Bukovina, Transylvania, part of the Banat, and part of Hungary
proper after World War I. The AJYB furnishes annual figures of the Jewish population
for each country between 1900 and 1940. Since it is generally recognized that
between 1881 and 1940 Jewish immigrants came almost exclusively from central and
eastern Europe, the figures for increased Jewish population should largely represent
eastern European Jewish immigration. As with GDP, missing data on Jewish immigra-
tion were interpolated based on the values of the preceding and proceeding years.
Lastly, we measure support for the political left by the percentage of all votes
cast for the leftist parties in Great Britain,10 France,11 Germany,12 Italy,13 and
Romania.14 All national election results covering the period of 1899–1939 for the
respective countries were gathered from Flora (1983), Mackie and Rose (1982),
and Dogan (1946). In non-election years, we carried over the figure from the most
recent election year.
To account for population variance in the five countries, we also standardized
the dependent variable, that is, anti-Semitic acts. In all analyses, we measure anti-
Semitism as the number of acts per million people in the respective countries.
This standardized variable allows a more fruitful comparison over time and
between countries and allows us to pool our data for multivariate analyses. But
before examining the effects of GDP, Jewish immigration, and support for the
political left on anti-Semitic acts, we first address regional and temporal variation
in anti-Semitic acts between 1899 and 1939.

Regional Variation in Anti-Semitism

Our investigation of the AJYB revealed significant variation across the five countries
of interest. Figure 1 compares the average number of anti-Semitic acts per million
people for the 41-year period across the five countries. According to Figure 1,
Great Britain, France, and Italy had rather few anti-Semitic acts: recording less
than 0.05 acts per million people. Yet the number of anti-Semitic acts in Germany
was more than five times that of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and the number
of anti-Semitic acts in Romania was three times that of Germany (see Figure 1).15
0.900
0.827

0.800
Mean Number of Anti-Semitic Acts per Million People

0.700

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300 0.270

0.200

0.100
0.039 0.030 0.023
0.000
Great Britain France Germany Italy Romania
Country

FIGURE 1. Mean Number of Anti-Semitic Acts per Million People by Country, 1899–1939
44 International Political Science Review 25(1)

50%

45%

40%

35% 34%

30%
Percent

25%

20%

15%
15%

10% 9%

6%
5%

0%
0%
Great Britain France Germany Italy Romania
Country

FIGURE 2. Percentage of Violent Anti-Semitic Acts in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and
Romania, 1899–1939

Our analysis also revealed variation in the nature of anti-Semitic acts across
countries. Figure 2 suggests that anti-Semitic acts in France and Italy were excep-
tionally non-violent, with only 6 percent and zero percent of all acts being violent,
respectively.16 The percentage of violent acts was slightly higher in Germany (9
percent) as well as in Great Britain (15 percent). Romanian anti-Semitism
appeared to be the most violent, with 34 percent of all acts being violent in nature.
Lastly, Figure 3 shows considerable temporal variation in anti-Semitism for all
five countries included in the analysis. Thus, we find that anti-Semitic acts were
relatively infrequent in France, Great Britain, and Italy, yet significantly more
frequent in Germany and particularly in Romania. We also found that Romanian
anti-Semitism was much more violent than in the other countries. Furthermore,
there was considerable temporal variation in anti-Semitism over the 41-year
period.

Explaining Regional and Temporal Variation in Anti-Semitism

Having provided a descriptive account of European anti-Semitic acts between 1899
and 1939, we now attempt to account for variation in anti-Semitic acts with a
multivariate analysis. As previously stated, we argue that variation in anti-Semitic
acts is largely a function of a country’s GDP, level of Jewish immigration, and
support for the political left. Given our hypothesis that these variables should
influence variation in anti-Semitism over both our 41-year time period and across
our respective countries of interest, the most efficient form of estimation is pooled
time-series analysis. Pooled models with heterogeneous dependent variables across
units (countries here) can raise estimation problems. Autocorrelation can inflate
significance levels and lead to biased results; heteroscedasticity may arise because
of vast country-level variation on the variables; and sociopolitical differences across
 Anti-Semitic Acts per Million People

0
1
2
3

0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5

1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913

Romania
1914
1915
1916
1917
Germany

1918
1919
Year

1920
1921
1922
Great Britain

1923
1924
1925
France

1926
1927
1928
Italy

1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
FIGURE 3. Anti-Semitic Acts per Million People in Romania, Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy by Year, 1899–1939

1936
1937
1938
1939

45 BRUSTEIN/KING: Anti-Semitism in Europe

46 International Political Science Review 25(1)

TABLE 2. Regression of Anti-Semitic Acts in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Romania on
Predictor Variables, 1899–1939

Unstandardized coefficient Standard

Variable (Standardized coefficient) error
Year……………………….. .010b .004
(.255)
Great Britain………………. .308 .191
(.250)
France……………………… .128 .103
(.103)
Germany (1899–1932)……. .296 b .107
(.107)
Germany (1933–39)……. .954 b .189
(.189)
Romania…………………… .590 b .134
(.478)
GDP…….………………….. –.013a .007
(–.341)
Jewish immigration…….…. .188 a .108
(.089)
Leftist vote …...………….. –.003 .004
(–.091)
Constant…………………… –18.086 b 6.62
R-square…………………… .502
a
p<.05, one-tailed
b
p<.05, two-tailed
Note: Italy is the reference category for country variables. Numbers in parentheses represent the
standardized coefficients.

countries can lead to heterogeneity and omission of variable bias (Sayrs, 1989).
Further, nonstationarity may bias results if variables tend to move in the same
direction over time. With these potential difficulties in mind, and because of the
variation across countries and the high number of years relative to countries, we
feel fixed-effects estimation is the most appropriate and most conservative
estimator to test our hypothesis. However, we conducted additional analyses with
alternate estimation techniques to test the robustness of our model (see below).
In our analysis, country is our fixed unit. We include dummy variables for each
country, with Italy as the reference category. Given the drastic social and political
change in Germany after Hitler came to power, we also include a dummy variable
representing Hitler’s period of rule in Germany (1933–39). We also control for
year in our analysis to help account for unmeasured socio-political change and
nonstationarity in our variables.
The results of the pooled time-series analysis suggest that, as expected, GDP had
a significant and negative effect on anti-Semitism (see Table 2). As economic
conditions worsened, incidents of anti-Semitism increased. Also consonant with
our theory, increases in Jewish immigration led to increases in anti-Semitism.
However, the effect of leftist voting was statistically nonsignificant in our pooled
model.
Because of the potential problems associated with time-series analysis (see
above), we ran additional tests to examine the robustness of our coefficients.
 BRUSTEIN/KING: Anti-Semitism in Europe 47

Analysis of residuals detected some autocorrelation in our model, and thus we ran
a random-effects model using generalized least squares (GLS) estimation and
added a lagged dependent variable measure to the model to correct for
autocorrelation. In this model, the substantive results held and the statistical
significance of Jewish immigration and GDP improved over the fixed-effects model
(p < .01, one-tailed).17 We report the fixed-effects model here because we feel it is
the most appropriate and more conservative statistical test of our theory.
We further analyzed the relationship between leftist voting and anti-Semitism,
which was statistically nonsignificant in our pooled model. Leftist support appears
to be a poor predictor of anti-Semitism across countries. For instance, Romania
had a noticeably high number of anti-Semitic acts, yet electoral support for leftist
parties never reached 10 percent during this time period. In contrast, Italy’s leftist
parties were considerably stronger, yet Italy had rather low levels of anti-Semitism.
Likewise, correlations within each country between anti-Semitic acts and leftist
support were generally positive (negative only in France), but mostly
nonsignificant. The only exceptions were Germany prior to Hitler and to a lesser
extent Romania. We found a striking correlation of nearly .65 between leftist
voting and anti-Semitism in Germany, but beyond this we find few meaningful
correlations between leftist voting and anti-Semitism. However, to be fair to our
theory, we argue that the relationship between increasing support for the political
left and rising anti-Semitism includes the popular perception that the leadership
of the left was identified with Jews. We are unable to test this proposition at this
time, although anecdotal evidence suggests that the allegation of Judeo-
Bolshevism held significant sway, particularly in Germany and Romania, but had
an insignificant presence in Italy. Further research is required to examine this
proposition more fully.18
Lastly, the variable representing linear time (year) remained significant in the
model, and we feel this warrants attention. This could suggest that other socio-
political changes occurred that are not encompassed in our model. For instance,
during this period it is plausible that Jews became more assimilated within their
host societies, which would mean more contact with the general population and
increased competition for employment and resources. However, a methodological
explanation seems equally plausible. It is likely that communication of anti-Semitic
acts increased with technological advances in the early-20th century. If this is the
case, the American Jewish Year Book may have underestimated the number of acts in
the early 1900s relative to later years included in our investigation.19

Conclusion
The scholarly literature on anti-Semitism typically involves an examination of anti-
Semitism within a particular nation or a nonempirical analysis of anti-Semitism
across several countries. In contrast to the extant literature on European anti-
Semitism, we provide a systematic, comparative, and empirical examination of
societal variation in anti-Semitism before the Holocaust. We have argued that the
four strains of anti-Semitism (religious, racial, economic, and political) were likely
ignited by the effects of declining economic well-being, increased Jewish immi-
gration, growth of leftist support, and identification of Jews with the leadership of
the political left in the decades before the Holocaust. Correspondingly, we
contend that regional and temporal variation in anti-Semitism is largely a function
of GDP, Jewish immigration, and support for the political left. This model of
48 International Political Science Review 25(1)

European anti-Semitism was mostly supported by our data, which examined anti-
Semitic acts between 1899 (the first year of the AJYB) and 1939. Consistent with our
expectations and with related literature on intergroup relations and group threat
(Blalock, 1967; Qullian, 1995; Giles and Evans, 1985; Giles and Buckner, 1993),
our findings suggest GDP and immigration have a significant effect on anti-
Semitism. Specifically, when GDP decreases, be it across country or over time, anti-
Semitic acts increase. Likewise, at times and places at which Jewish immigration
increases, we again find that anti-Semitic acts increase. Yet, our analysis of leftist
voting did not reveal a significant relationship with anti-Semitism. Supplementary
analyses suggest that only in Germany was this relationship substantial. We feel
that the importance of the left for understanding anti-Semitism in Germany, but
to a lesser extent in other European countries, may be an avenue for future work
on anti-Semitism.
The strong relationship between declining GDP and rising levels of anti-
Semitism would appear to give support to the scapegoat theory of anti-Semitism as
well. The scapegoat theory holds that in times of significant national trauma, the
host population has a tendency to blame minorities for its misfortunes. However,
as we have stated above, the scapegoat theory fails to provide an explanation for
why Jews rather than other minorities become victims and why in some societies
during periods of social and economic malaise groups other than Jews are
portrayed as scapegoats. Further empirical research and innovative research
design may be needed to elaborate this suggestion more thoroughly.
Although we made few assumptions about the nature of European anti-
Semitism, our investigation of the volumes of the American Jewish Year Book revealed
significant variation in the nature of anti-Semitic acts. For instance, we found that
Romanian anti-Semitism was rather violent (more than a third of all acts were
violent). In contrast, German (and later Italian) anti-Semitism often involved
dismissals and requests that Jews leave posts, appointments, or employment
decisions, as well as discriminatory laws. Anti-Semitic acts in France, Italy, and
Great Britain, meanwhile, were largely composed of media attacks (between 25
percent and 31 percent) and non-violent acts.
Taken together, we may conclude that the number and nature of European
anti-Semitic acts before the Holocaust varied significantly over time and across
countries. Moreover, this variation was at least partly a function of economic well-
being and Jewish immigration. We suggest future research expand our work on
anti-Semitic acts to include anti-Semitic attitudes and discourse.

Notes
1. In a provocative study of the role of ordinary Germans in the Holocaust, Goldhagen
(1996) claims that German anti-Semitism was indeed qualitatively different by virtue of
its eliminationist character and the extent of its embeddedness in German culture and
society before 1945. Goldhagen’s work suggests that before World War II popular anti-
Semitism was both qualitatively and quantitatively different outside of Germany. Some
might dismiss the value of such a comparison given that the Holocaust was perpetrated
by Germans and not by other Europeans. However, the fact that Germans organized the
Holocaust does not by itself demonstrate that German popular anti-Semitism was sui
generis. For is it unreasonable to argue that if a political movement such as the German
Nazi Party, with its agenda of eliminating Europe’s Jewish population, had come to
power in another country, a genocidal campaign against the Jews might have been
undertaken?
 BRUSTEIN/KING: Anti-Semitism in Europe 49

2. Fein’s (1979) systematic and empirical examination of national variation in Jewish

victimization in the Holocaust is a notable exception to the rule. However, Fein’s study
does not focus centrally on either the rise of modern anti-Semitism or national variation
in popular anti-Semitism before World War II.
3. The modernization argument shares a great affinity with the “power” model of
intergroup hostility and the racial threat model in sociology. These models see growing
antipathy on the part of a formerly advantaged ethnic or racial group resulting from
competition with a rising ethnic or racial group for control of economic, political, and
social resources (Giles and Evans, 1986; Wald and Shye, 1994; Blalock, 1967; Quillian,
1995; Bobo and Hutchings, 1996).
4. A more general application of the frustration-aggression model is found in Dollard et al.
(1939).
5. There is a rather rich literature on the four strains of anti-Semitism in Europe. For
religious anti-Semitism, see Hertzberg (1968), Ruether (1987), Quinley and Glock
(1987), Lindemann (1991), Mosse (1970), Efron (1994), Weiss (1996), Pulzer (1992),
Weinberg (1986), Katz (1980), Pauley (1992), and Wistrich (1991); for racial anti-
Semitism, see Efron (1994), Katz (1980), Pauley (1992), Wistrich (1991), and Poliakov
(1971); for economic anti-Semitism, see Weiss (1996), Pauley (1992), Katz (1980),
Birnbaum (1992), Ruppin (1934), and Arendt (1975); and for political anti-Semitism,
see Wilson (1982) and Lindemann (1997).
6. Our thinking on the relationship between immigration and prejudice has been largely
informed by the competing models of Olzak (1992) and Hechter (1978). Olzak posits
that greater social contact from decreasing occupational and residential segregation
produces increased ethnic competition. Competition along ethnic lines, according to
Olzak, leads to increased ethnic intolerance. On the other hand, Hechter sees
immigration as fostering higher ethnic segregation, leading to the introduction of a
hierarchical cultural division of labor in which ethnic groups are assigned to particular
occupational or social roles. Ethnic tensions are likely to erupt as ethnic groups become
aware of the existence of inequality along ethnic lines.
7. While the volumes of the American Jewish Year Book correspond to the Jewish year
(autumn to autumn), years from the Christian calendar are noted in the volumes. Thus,
coding the data according to the Christian calendar was not problematic.
8. A note regarding the coding process and inter-coder reliability is warranted here. Three
graduate research assistants coded and classified the anti-Semitic acts from the AJYB. All
research assistants received the same training. Initially, one of the research assistants
read through the appropriate sections of all 41 volumes of the AJYB, coding acts where
appropriate. Thereafter, two different research assistants (but trained the same) reread
the volumes, alternating every other year, to check for missed acts and coding
discrepancies. The few mistakes that were found were corrected during the second
reading. While most anti-Semitic acts were relatively straightforward, those that were not
easily discernable were copied and reviewed by all the coders and, when necessary, the
project coordinator. Having read through the volumes of the AJYB twice and having
consulted on all potentially difficult cases, we feel that issues of inter-coder reliability
were well addressed throughout the research process.
9. We also considered separating categories that largely entail actions by the state
(categories 2, 5, and 8 from Table 1) from categories that almost exclusively include acts
committed by members of the general public. However, these groups were correlated at
.85, which justifies combining these categories into one measure of anti-Semitism.
10. Leftist support in Great Britain was taken to be the total percentage of votes for the
Labour Party, Independent Labour Party, Communist Party, and National Labour Party.
Figures through 1918 include Ireland; thereafter, the figures include only Northern
Ireland. Also, in the case of Great Britain, votes for the Labour Party are also counted as
support for the left, though some might argue that by the mid-1920s the programs of
the British Labour Party espoused a mild form of socialism. In fact, the same could be
said for most of the Continental social-democratic and socialist parties. Moreover, in the
50 International Political Science Review 25(1)

eyes of many anti-Semites, the British Labour Party differed very little from the more
radical leftist parties.
11. Leftist support in France included votes for the Socialists, Socialist Party, Independent
Socialists, Socialist Republicans, and Communist Party.
12. Leftist support in Germany included votes for the Social Democrats, Independent
Social Democrats, and Communist Party.
13. Leftist support in Italy included votes for the Socialist Party, Independent Socialists,
Reformist Socialists, and Communist Party.
14. Leftist support in Romania included votes for the Social Democratic Party, Socialist
Party, and the Worker and Peasant Bloc.
15. Although anti-Semitic acts were significantly more prevalent in Romania than Germany
over the 41-year period, we found no significant difference during Hitler’s period of
power.
16. Acts were coded as violent if they fell into the following categories: (1) vandalism or
destruction of property, (2) riots with vandalism, destruction of property, or physical
assault or murder, and (3) violent acts against the person, murder, deportation, or false
arrest. The latter category consisted nearly exclusively of violent acts or murder. For
instance, in Romania, 44 of the 46 acts in that category were violent, while only two were
non-violent false arrests or deportations.
17. These results are available from the authors upon request.
18. We also conducted analyses using only system-challenging leftist parties. Although this
operationalization of leftist support showed a positive effect on anti-Semitic acts
(consistent with our expectations), the coefficient was not statistically significant.
19. Subsequent “moving regression” analyses suggest the variable “year” is rather unstable,
particularly when the early years are removed from the analysis. This is consistent with
our methodological explanation.

References
Almog, Shmuel (1990). Nationalism & Anti-Semitism in Modern Europe 1815–1945. Oxford:
Pergamon.
American Jewish Year Book (1899–1939). Vols. 5660–5700. Baltimore, MD: Lord Baltimore Press.
Andreski, Stanislav (1963). “An Economic Interpretation of Anti-Semitism in Eastern
Europe,” Jewish Journal of Sociology 5: 201–13.
Arendt, Hannah (1975). The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.
Ascheim, Steven E. (1981). Strange Encounters: The East European Jew in German and German
Jewish Consciousness 1800–1923. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bergmann, Werner (1992). “Psychological and Sociological Theories of Anti-Semitism,”
Patterns of Prejudice 26: 37–47.
Bernstein, Richard J. (1996). Hannah Arendt and the Jewish Question. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Birnbaum, Pierre (1992). Anti-Semitism in France: A Political History from Leon Blum to the
Present, trans. Miriam Kochan. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blalock, Hubert M. (1967). Towards a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: Wiley.
Bobo, L. and Hutchings, V. (1996). “Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending
Blumer’s Theory of Group Position to Multiracial Social Context,” American Sociological
Review 61: 951–72.
Butnaru, Ivan C. (1992). The Silent Holocaust: Romania and its Jews. New York: Greenwood
Press.
Byrnes, Robert F. (1950). Anti-Semitism in Modern France. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Canepa, Andrew (1989). “Christian-Jewish Relations in Italy from Unification to Fascism,”
in I. Herzer (ed.), The Italian Refuge: Rescue of Jews During the Holocaust. Washington, DC:
Catholic University Press.
Dimont, Max I. (1962). Jews, God, and History. New York: Simon and Schuster.
 BRUSTEIN/KING: Anti-Semitism in Europe 51

Dinnerstein, Leonard (1994). Antisemitism in America. New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dogan, Mattei (1946). Analiza Statistica A Democratiei Parlamentare din Romania. Anexa 29
Tabele. Bucuresti: Editura Partidului Social-Democrat.
Dollard, J., Miller, N. and Doob, L. (1939). Frustration and Aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Efron, John M. (1994). Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors & Race Science in Fin-De-Siecle
Europe. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Ettinger, Shmuel (1988). “Jew-Hatred in its Historical Context,” in Shmuel Almog (ed.),
Anti-Semitism Through the Ages. Oxford: Pergamon.
Fein, Helen (1979). Accounting for Genocide: National Responses and Jewish Victimization During
the Holocaust. New York: Free Press.
Fein, Helen (1987). “Explanations of the Origin and Evolution of Anti-Semitism,” in H.
Fein (ed.), The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Anti-
Semitism, Vol. 1. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Fischer-Galati, Stephen (1974). “Fascism, Communism, and the Jewish Question in
Romania,” in B. Vago and G.L. Mosse (eds), Jews and Non-Jews in Eastern Europe
1918–1945. New York: Wiley.
Fitch, Nancy (1992). “Mass Culture, Mass Parliamentary Politics, and Modern Anti-
Semitism: The Dreyfus Affair in Rural France,” American Historical Review 97: 55–95.
Flora, Peter (1983). State, Economy, and Society in Western Europe, 1815–1975, Vol. 1.
Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Friedlaender, Saul (1997). Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol. 1, The Years of Persecution,
1933–1939. New York: Harper Collins.
Giles, Michael W. and Buckner, Melanie A. (1993). “David Duke and Black Threat: An Old
Hypothesis Revisited,” Journal of Politics 55: 702–13.
Giles, Michael W. and Evans, Arthur S. (1985). “External Threat, Perceived Threat, and
Group Identity,” Social Science Quarterly 66: 50–66.
Giles, Michael W. and Evans, Arthur S. (1986). “The Power Approach to Intergroup
Hostility,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 30: 469–86.
Good, David F. and Ma, Thomas (1998). “New Estimates of Income Levels in Central and
Eastern Europe, 1870–1910,” in F. Baltzarek, F. Butschek and G. Tichy (eds), Von der
Theorie zur Wirtschaftspolitik-ein Oesterreichischer Weg. Festschrift zum 65 Geburstag von Erich
Streissler. Stuttgart: Lucius/Lucius.
Goldhagen, Daniel (1996). Hitler’s Willing Executioners. New York: Knopf.
Grosser, Paul E. and Halperin, Edward G. (1978). Anti-Semitism, Causes and Effects: An
Analysis and Chronology of 1900 Years of Anti-Semitic Attitudes and Practices. New York:
Philosophical Library.
Hechter, Michael (1978). “Group Formation and the Cultural Division of Labor,” American
Journal of Sociology 84: 293–318.
Hertzberg, Arthur (1968). The French Enlightenment and the Jews. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Higham, John (1988). Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860–1925. New
Brunswick, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press.
Hirshfield, Claire (1981). “The British Left and the ‘Jewish Conspiracy’: A Case Study of
Modern Anti-Semitism,” Jewish Social Studies 43: 95–112.
Holmes, Colin (1979). Anti-Semitism in British Society 1876–1939. New York: Holmes and
Meier.
Iancu, Carol (1978). Les Juifs en Roumanie (1866–1919): De L’Exclusion a L’Emancipation. Aix-
en-Provence: Editions de l’Universite de Provence.
Katz, Jacob (1980). From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism, 1700–1933. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kershaw, Ian (1983). Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich: Bavaria
1933–1945. Oxford: Clarendon.
Langmuir, Gavin I. (1987). “Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism,” in H. Fein (ed.), The
52 International Political Science Review 25(1)

Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Anti-Semitism, Vol. 1.
Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Lebzelter, Gisela (1978). Political Anti-Semitism in England 1918–1939. New York: Holmes and
Meier.
Lindemann, Albert S. (1991). The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs (Dreyfus, Beilis, Frank)
1894–1915. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindemann, Albert S. (1997). Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mackie, Thomas T. and Rose, Richard (1982). The International Almanac of Electoral History,
2nd edn. New York: Facts on File.
Maddison, Angus (1995). Monitoring the World Economy 1820–1992. Paris: OECD.
Mandle, William F. (1968). Anti-Semitism and the British Union of Fascists. London: Longmans.
Marrus, Michael R. (1971). The Politics of Assimilation: A Study of the French Jewish Community at
the Time of the Dreyfus Affair. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marrus, Michael R. (1982). “The Theory and Practice of Anti-Semitism,” Commentary 74: 38–42.
Marrus, Michael R. (1985). The Unwanted: European Refugees in the Twentieth Century. New
York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marrus, Michael R. and Paxton, Robert O. (1981). Vichy France and the Jews. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Massing, Paul W. (1949). Rehearsal for Destruction: A Study of Political Anti-Semitism in Imperial
Germany. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Michaelis, Meir (1978). Mussolini and the Jews: German-Italian Relations and the Jewish Question
in Italy 1922–1945. Oxford: Clarendon.
Morse, Arthur D. (1968). While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy. New York:
Random House.
Mosse, George L. (1970). Germans and Jews: The Right, The Left, and the Search for a “Third
Force” in Pre-Nazi Germany. New York: Fertig.
Mosse, George L. (1985). Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Niewyk, Donald L. (1980). The Jews in Weimar Germany. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press.
Oldson, William O. (1991). A Providential Anti-Semitism: Nationalism and Polity in Nineteenth
Century Romania. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society.
Olzak, Susan (1992). The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Pauley, Bruce F. (1992). From Prejudice to Persecution: A History of Austrian Anti-Semitism.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Poliakov, Leon (1971). The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe,
trans. E. Howard. New York: Basic Books.
Pulzer, Peter (1992). Jews and the German State: The Political History of a Minority, 1848–1933.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Quillian, Lincoln (1995). “Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population
Composition and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe,” American Sociological
Review 60: 586–611.
Quinley, Harold E. and Glock, Charles Y. (1987). “Christian Sources of Anti-Semitism,” in
H. Fein (ed.), The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern
Anti-Semitism, Vol. 1. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Ruether, Rosemary R. (1987). “The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism,” in H. Fein (ed.),
The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Anti-Semitism,
Vol. 1. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Ruppin. Arthur (1934). The Jews in the Modern World. London: Macmillan.
Sayrs, Lois W. (1989). Pooled Time Series Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sternhell, Zev (1985). “The Roots of Popular Anti-Semitism in the Third Republic,” in F.
Malino and B. Wasserstein (eds), The Jews in Modern France. Hanover and London:
University Press of New England.
 BRUSTEIN/KING: Anti-Semitism in Europe 53

Strauss, Herbert A. (1993). “Introduction: Possibilities and Limits of Comparison,” in H.A.

Strauss (ed.), Current Research on Anti-Semitism, Vol. 3(1). Berlin and New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
Vago, Raphael (1993). “The Traditions of Antisemitism in Romania,” Patterns of Prejudice 27:
107–19.
Volovici, Leon (1991). Nationalist Ideology & Antisemitism: The Case of Romanian Intellectuals in
the 1930s. Oxford: Pergamon.
Wald, Kenneth D. and Shye, Samuel (1994). “Inter-Religious Conflict in Israel: The Group
Basis of Conflicting Visions,” Political Behavior 16: 157–78.
Weinberg, Meyer (1986). Because They Were Jews. New York and Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Weiss, John (1996). Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany. Chicago, IL:
Ivan R. Dee.
Wilson, Stephen (1982). Ideology and Experience: Anti-Semitism in France at the Time of the
Dreyfus Affair. Rutherford, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press.
Wistrich, Robert S. (1991). Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred. New York: Pantheon Books.
Zenner, Walter P. (1987). “Middleman Minority Theories: a Critical Review,” in H. Fein
(ed.), The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Anti-
Semitism, Vol. 1. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Zucotti, Susan (1987). The Italians and the Holocaust: Persecution, Rescue, and Survival. New
York: Basic Books.

Biographical Notes
WILLIAM I. BRUSTEIN is Director of the University Center for International Studies,
Professor of Sociology, Political Science, and History, at the University of
Pittsburgh. He has published widely on the issue of political extremism. His most
recent book is Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust. ADDRESS:
University Center for International Studies, 4G40 Wesley W. Posvar Hall, University
of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA [email: brustein@ucis.pitt.edu].
RYAN D. KING is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University
of Minnesota, where he is completing his dissertation research on the enforce-
ment of hate-crime laws in the USA. His recent work includes “Politicized
Scholarship? Science on Crime and the State” in Social Problems with Joachim
Savelsberg and Lara Cleveland. ADDRESS: Department of Sociology, University of
Minnesota, 909 Social Sciences Building, 267-19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN
55455, USA [email: kingx077@tc.umn.edu].
Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Amy Ronnkvist and Marit Berntson for
assistance with the data collection, as well as Kenneth D. Wald and James Meadowcroft for
helpful comments on earlier drafts. This research was supported by grants from the
National Science Foundation (No. SES-9905000), the Dr. Sol and Mitzi Center Fund, the
Philip and Florence Dworsky Endowment, the Edelstein Family Foundation, and a
University of Minnesota Grant-in-Aid of Research.