Many still consider Nazi ideology’s focus on antisemitism and their policy of persecuting and exterminating Jews as an accident or a pretext.

The prominence of the “Jewish question” in politics was heightened by the horror of the Holocaust and the displacement of survivors.

Public opinion often viewed Nazi antisemitism as mere demagogy or a tool to manipulate masses rather than a genuine goal.

This misunderstanding stems from the difficulty in reconciling the disproportionate cause (antisemitism) with the massive effect (Holocaust), which challenges common sense and historians’ expectations.

Explanations of antisemitism often seem hasty and insufficient, failing to address its deep threat to reason and sanity.

One common but flawed explanation is equating antisemitism with nationalism and its xenophobic outbursts.

In reality, modern antisemitism grew as traditional nationalism declined, peaking when the European nation-state system collapsed.

Nazis were not simple nationalists; their nationalist propaganda targeted casual supporters, but core members upheld a supranational political vision.

Nazi “nationalism” shared traits with Soviet nationalist propaganda—used mainly to appeal to mass prejudices rather than reflect true ideology.

Nazis contemptuously rejected narrow nationalism and province-bound nation-states, promoting an international movement akin to Bolshevism.

Antisemitic parties since the late 19th century were among the first to organize internationally and coordinate across borders.

Historical phenomena like antisemitism and nationalism cannot be explained by a single cause due to complex contexts.

Tocqueville’s insight on the French Revolution helps explain antisemitism: hatred arose more from aristocrats’ loss of power but retention of wealth than from oppression itself.

People resent wealth without visible function more than outright exploitation.

Antisemitism peaked when Jews had lost public functions and influence, retaining only wealth, which provoked resentment.

By Hitler’s rise, German banks were nearly free of Jews, who had held key positions for over a century.

German Jewry was declining in social status and numbers, with predictions of near disappearance without persecution.

Nazi persecution can be seen as a senseless acceleration of this decline.

Similar patterns appeared in Western Europe: the Dreyfus Affair occurred when Jews had mostly lost important positions.

Austrian antisemitism intensified after the fall of the Hapsburg monarchy, when Jews suffered a loss of influence and prestige.

Overall, antisemitism’s rise is tied to the loss of Jewish public roles combined with visible wealth, not merely nationalism or xenophobia.

Persecution of groups losing power is not caused by human meanness alone but by a rational instinct about the social function of power.

People obey or tolerate those with real power because power serves a general social function.

Exploitation and oppression maintain some social order, unlike wealth without power, which is seen as parasitical and useless.

Wealth that does not exploit lacks even the exploiter-exploited relationship, making it revolting because it severs social ties.

The decline of Western and Central European Jewry created the atmosphere but does not fully explain the subsequent events like the Holocaust.

Violent hatred or rebellion does not necessarily spring from great power or abuses; organized hatred of Jews is not a reaction to their importance or power.

Another fallacy is blaming Jews as powerless scapegoats responsible for all conflicts, a theory favored by many liberals.

A post-WWI joke mocks this scapegoat idea by comparing Jews to bicyclists as blamed causes of the war.

The scapegoat theory implies the victim is innocent and completely disconnected from the conflict.

However, when analyzed, scapegoat theory inevitably involves historical research showing multiple groups are involved, and the scapegoated group is coresponsible, not purely innocent.

The scapegoat theory is often motivated by escapism but has gained new credibility due to the rise of terror as a government tool.

Modern dictatorships use terror not just to eliminate enemies but to control obedient masses by striking arbitrarily and without provocation.

Victims of terror are often objectively innocent, chosen regardless of their actions or behavior.

Nazi terror targeted Jews based on common characteristics, not behavior.

Soviet terror is more arbitrary and widespread, with no racial limits and no fixed classes, making anyone a potential victim.

This terror contradicts traditional scapegoat theory because victims are chosen randomly and are innocent.

There is a temptation to see terror victims as pure scapegoats, innocent and powerless, but terror must be linked to an ideology to be effective.

Totalitarian regimes use terror as a tool to enforce an ideology that has already gained majority adherence.

The Jews were the center of Nazi ideology before becoming the main terror victims.

Ideologies that mobilize masses cannot choose victims arbitrarily; victims must serve a specific ideological purpose.

The widespread belief in the forged “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” shows the power of antisemitic ideology beyond the fact of forgery itself.

The scapegoat explanation is a way to escape the seriousness of antisemitism and the historical significance of Jews being at the center of events.

The opposing doctrine is that of “eternal antisemitism,” which claims Jew-hatred is a natural, eternal problem requiring no special explanation.

This doctrine serves as an alibi for horrors, justifying Jew-killing as a normal human activity over two millennia.

The theory of eternal antisemitism has been adopted not only by antisemites but also by many unbiased historians and a significant number of Jews, making the theory dangerous and confusing.

Both antisemites and Jewish adherents use this theory to escape responsibility: antisemites to justify their deeds, Jews to avoid discussing their own role.

The rise of modern antisemitism coincided with Jewish assimilation, secularization, and the decline of traditional religious and spiritual values of Judaism.

Jews faced threats of physical extinction from outside and dissolution from within simultaneously.

Some Jews mistakenly believed that antisemitism might serve as a means to preserve Jewish unity and ensure an eternal guarantee of Jewish existence—a secularized, misguided form of faith in chosenness and Messianic hope.

This superstition was reinforced by centuries of Christian hostility towards Jews, which had spiritually and politically preserved Jewish identity.

Jews confused modern anti-Christian antisemitism with old religious Jew-hatred, especially since many Jews had assimilated and bypassed Christianity’s religious and cultural influence.

This misunderstanding led to a fatal underestimation of unprecedented dangers ahead.

Jewish history is unique: a people without government, country, or language, holding a strong concept of history but avoiding political action for two thousand years.

Consequently, Jewish political history became dependent on unforeseen, accidental factors, with Jews shifting roles and avoiding responsibility.

Given the near annihilation of Jews, the eternal antisemitism thesis has become more dangerous than ever, absolving perpetrators of responsibility for unprecedented crimes.

Antisemitism is not a guarantee of Jewish survival but a threat of extermination.

Despite refutation by reality, the theory persists by emphasizing the complete innocence of victims of modern terror and offering a circular explanation: Jews are targeted because of eternal hostility.

The two main doctrines explaining antisemitism (eternal antisemitism and scapegoat theory) both deny specific Jewish responsibility and refuse to discuss specific historical factors.

This denial resembles modern arbitrary terror regimes that suppress human activity and agency.

In extermination camps, Jews were killed regardless of their behavior, mirroring the doctrines’ portrayal of Jews as innocent victims.

The murderers acted as impersonal instruments, aligning with the theory’s impersonal view of hatred.

Such parallels do not prove historical truth but explain why these opinions sound plausible and timely to many.

Historians must be cautious of generally accepted opinions that claim to explain history but are often desperate escapes from responsibility.

Plato criticized the Sophists for valuing persuasion over truth, noting that opinions are valid only temporarily.

Modern sophists differ by seeking lasting victory at the expense of reality, destroying the dignity of human action, unlike ancients who merely sought argument victory.

Ancient sophists were the concern of philosophers, while modern sophists hinder historians by manipulating facts and undermining history’s comprehensibility.

Discarding opinions and traditions leaves few guides through historical complexities, but this is a minor issue compared to the profound upheavals in Western history.

The collapse of the European nation-state, rise of antisemitic movements, and extermination of Jews must be seen as interconnected and significant.

Modern antisemitism should be understood within the broader development of the nation-state and specific Jewish historical functions over recent centuries.

Antisemitic slogans became effective for mobilizing masses for imperialist expansion and destruction of old governments during the final disintegration phase.

The historical relationship between Jews and the state contains elementary clues to the hostility between society and Jews.

The growth of the modern mob (declasses of all classes) produced leaders who saw Jews as the “key to history” and the central cause of all evils, regardless of Jewish importance.

The previous history of Jews and society contains basic indications of this hostile relationship.

The Dreyfus Affair is a key case showing the political potential of antisemitism as a major weapon in 19th-century politics.

Subsequent chapters analyze preparatory elements leading to full realization of antisemitism during the decline of the nation-state and rise of imperialism.