anti-semitism as a response to perceived jewish power: the cases of bulgaria and romania before the...

Anti-Semitism as a Response to Perceived Jewish Power: The Cases of Bulgaria and Romaniabefore the HolocaustAuthor(s): William I. Brustein and Ryan D. KingSource: Social Forces, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Dec., 2004), pp. 691-708Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3598344 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.31 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:01:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3598344?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Anti-Semitism As a Response to Perceived Jewish Power: The Cases of Bulgaria and Romania before the Holocaust*

WILLIAM I. BRUSTEIN, University of Pittsburgh RYAN D. KING, University of Minnesota

Abstract

We empirically examine variation in anti-Semitic acts and attitudes in Romania and Bulgaria before the Holocaust. In Romania, where Jews comprised a large proportion of the middle class and were associated with the leadership of the communist party, anti-Semitism increased when economic conditions worsened. Further, Romanian anti-Semitism increased when the size of the Jewish population increased, but only at times when the leftist parties were gaining strength. These findings did not replicatefor Bulgaria, where Jews were neither holders of significant wealth nor associated with the leadership of the communist left. The theoretical implicationsfor anti-Semitism andfor structural accounts ofprejudice are discussed.

Despite aligning Bulgaria with Nazi Germany in March 1941, Bulgaria's King Boris and his government resisted Nazi Germany's demands in the spring of 1943 to roundup the country's 42,000 Jews and deport them to Auschwitz. What is clear is that the decision of the King and the Bulgarian government to save the country's Jews did not take place in a vacuum. The Bulgarian people, along with the country's

* Authorship is alphabetical. A version of this article was presented at the 2003 American Sociological Association annual meeting. We would like to thank Marit Berntson, Dan Cazanacli, Svetozar Kitinov, Irina Livezeanu and Amy Ronnkvist for invaluable research assistance. We also thank Joachim Savelsberg and Chris Uggen for helpful comments on this work. This research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (#SES- 9905000), The Dr. Sol and Mitzi Center Fund, the Philip and Florence Dworsky Endow- ment, the Edelstein Family Foundation, a University of Minnesota Grant-in-Aid of Re- search and the Provost office of the University of Pittsburgh. Please direct correspondence to William Brustein, 4G40 Wesley W. Posvar Hall, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. E-mail: [email protected] or Ryan King, 909 Social Sciences Building, Uni- versity of Minnesota, 267 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN, 55455. E-mail: [email protected].

Social Forces, December 2004, 83(2):691-708 ? The University of North Carolina Press



692 / Social Forces 83:2, December 2004

Orthodox Church, played an active role in persuading the authorities to spare the country's Jews. Further, Bulgarian efforts to protect the country's Jews should not be interpreted as atypical, for relations between Jews and non-Jews in Bulgaria had been relatively cordial throughout the years (Bar-Zohar 1998; Ben Ya'akov 1997; Haskell 1994; Mallinger 1996; Todorova 1999).1

Bulgaria's reaction to its Jewish community stands in stark contrast to the treatment of Jews by Bulgaria's northern neighbor, Romania. Romania is a particularly interesting case because save Tsarist Russia it was the only European state before WWI to refuse to emancipate its Jews. Moreover, Romanian fascist parties, most notably the Iron Guard, were possibly as vehemently anti-Semitic as the German Nazi Party (Payne 1995). On December 28, 1937 an anti-Semitic government (Goga-Cuzist) was appointed to lead Romania. In one of its first official acts, approved and enforced by King Carol in January 1938, the new government undermined the position of the Jewish minority residing in Romania by banning Jewish newspapers, firing Jewish public servants, cutting off state aid to Jewish institutions, and invalidating Jewish citizenship documents issued after the commencement of World War I. By royal decree, roughly 225,000 Jews, or approximately 36% of Romania's Jewish population, lost their citizenship (Marrus 1985; Shapiro 1974). Moreover, the Romanian government largely acquiesced to widespread anti-Semitic violence in the country, particularly during the inter-war period, and anti-Semitism during WWII was nearly as rampant in Romania as in Germany, exemplified by the two large unorganized pogroms taking place in Romania in 1941 in which thousands of Jews were killed or, more ominously, the fact that Romania's government was the only government besides the German Nazi government to establish and operate its own extermination camp in Podolia, where over 100,000 Jews perished in the camps (Chary 1972).

The considerable difference between Bulgaria and Romania concerning Jews and anti-Semitism makes for an intriguing case study. Why did Bulgaria protect its Jews despite its alliance with Nazi Germany during WWII, while anti-Semitism flourished in Romania? How great was the difference in popular anti-Semitism in the two countries, and how might the vastly different anti-Semitic trajectories in the early twentieth century be explained? We offer an explanation that draws from prior theoretical work emphasizing the role of changing economic conditions and shifts in the size of the Jewish population. Yet, we specify conditions under which these factors should affect anti-Semitism.

Theoretical Framework

STRUCTURAL THEORIES OF EUROPEAN ANTI-SEMITISM

Prior work on European anti-Semitism suggests changes in structural conditions are associated with anti-Semitism - notably changes in economic conditions and



Anti-Semitism and Perceived Jewish Power / 693

demographics. Consider, for instance, modernization theories of anti-Semitism. Modernization arguments typically assign causality to either the effects of rising economic competition or to growing anomic stresses resulting from the process of modernization. The process of modernization in Europe 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 Gentiles, which reinforced anti- Semitic attitudes. An underlying argument within this strain of the modernization thesis of anti-Semitism is that modernization wrought a zero sum process that enhanced Jewish upward mobility at the cost of downward mobility for non-Jews. The losers in the process of modernization tended to harbor the strongest anti- Semitic beliefs. The emphasis in this argument is generally on the emergence of social tensions based on a competitive relationship between Jews and non-Jews (Almog 1990; Ettinger 1988; Fein 1987; Lindemann 1997). According to this thesis, anti-Semitism should increase when competition for limited resources increases, such as during times of economic stagnation.

This perspective jibes with scapegoat theory, another prominent perspective on anti-Semitism and inter-group conflict. This line of argument suggests that people of dominant ethnic or racial groups tend to blame particular minority groups in times of crisis. Blalock (1967) observes that highly visible or foreign minority groups with high economic status and low political clout filling a middleman role between the dominant elites and the impoverished masses, particularly in times of intense stress, are likely to become ideal scapegoats. Proponents of the scapegoat theory, as it pertains to the Jews, see the Jews as prototypical of a foreign middlemen minority. European societies 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). That European Jews constituted a minority group dispersed among many countries and traditionally engaged as traders and artisans relying on non-Jewish customers made them convenient targets for the majority people's frustrations in times of national crises. Jews became a group upon whom the majority population instinctively assigned blame for their misfortunes (Ettinger 1988; Fein 1979; Katz 1980; Marrus 1985; Strauss 1993:7). Like modernization theory, scapegoat theory posits an increase in anti-Semitism during periods of economic deterioration.

Group threat theory (Blalock 1967; Blumer 1958) also suggests economic conditions affect out-group hostility, but this perspective also highlights the importance of demographic shifts. Specifically, as the minority group size increases, it becomes a more viable political and economic threat to the majority (Blalock 1967). Giles and Buckner (1993), for instance, find greater support for right-wing politician David Duke in the 1990 Senate election in voting districts where the proportion of Blacks was greatest. Although rarely employed as a theory of anti- Jewish sentiments, we suggest group threat theory provides a useful framework for understanding European anti-Semitism.




Consonant with modernization, scapegoat, and threat perspectives, we argue that changes in structural conditions, namely the economy and the size of the Jewish population, should affect levels of anti-Semitism. However, we differ from prior work by suggesting these associations should not be uniform across all settings. First, we argue the size of the minority group should influence prejudice or inter- group conflict only if the minority group is perceived to support a political agenda at odds with the agenda of the majority group. If the political agenda associated with the minority group were not viewed as threatening, then we would expect minimal association between minority group size and out-group hostility. We contend that where the subordinate group is perceived as supporting a threatening political party, the size of that group should significantly influence out-group hostility, prejudice, and violence. Comparing Romania and Bulgaria is fruitful for testing this assertion because, as we argue below, the communist party was closely linked with Judaism in Romania, but this association did not culminate in Bulgaria. Second, the effect of economic conditions on anti-Semitism should be salient where Jews are disproportionately represented in the middle class and tend to hold positions of power in the financial sector because they are more likely viewed as controlling wealth and resources. Again, Romania and Bulgaria are fruitful for examining this proposition because Jews were overrepresented in the middle-class in Romania but not Bulgaria (see below).

Bulgaria and Romania in the early twentieth century also make for an intriguing comparison because the two countries resembled one another on a number of notable characteristics. For instance, economic conditions in each country were comparable in the early twentieth century (Crampton 1987; Janos 1978), both industrialized at comparable rates, the two countries share geographic proximity, and both were governed by constitutional monarchies during the time period of interest. Yet, we argue anti-Semitism in the two countries took completely different trajectories in the first half of the twentieth century, and the impact of economic conditions and demographic change should not be uniform across the two countries. We contend that economic conditions and the size of the Jewish population should impact anti-Semitism where Jews were associated with controlling substantial wealth and subversive political parties, as we suggest occurred in Romania in the early 20th century. In the following section we unpack the role of Jews in the economic and political climate of Bulgaria and Romania prior to WWII before turning to our empirical analysis.




Jews As Economic and Political Threats in Bulgaria and Romania

ECONOMIC ANTI-SEMITISM

Since the advent of the Christian era Jews have been accused of following unethical business practices in second-hand trade, petty commerce, and moneylending (Pauley 1992; Weiss 1996). With the rise of the modern nation-state and the establishment of a modern world economy Jews were identified with economic liberalism and charged with manipulation of currency rates and prices due to their perceived control over the principal financial institutions throughout the West (Almog 1990; Arendt 1975; Birnbaum 1992; Katz 1980; Ruppen 1934). We see differences in this regard between Bulgaria and Romania.

As was the case in other east and central European nations during the interwar period, foreign capital played an increasing important role in Bulgarian industry and banking. Much like their European neighbors, both Bulgarian industrial workers and peasants suffered severely from the effects of the Great Depression. But unlike much of Europe, economic anti-Semitism failed to mobilize a popular following in Bulgaria. Elsewhere in Europe, anti-Semites aroused resentment toward Jews by pointing to the nefarious roles that Jews allegedly performed as

moneylenders, major leaseholders, and financiers. In Bulgaria, myths about the inordinate wealth of Jews or Jewish avaricious behavior elicited negligible support because Jews were not noticeable by virtue of extravagant wealth or disproportionate domination of key sectors of the economy. In fact, in direct contrast to Romania where Jews often served as intermediaries between the noble landowners and peasants and as rural moneylenders, in Bulgaria these roles were more likely to be assumed by Christian Bulgarians (Chary 1972). In the literature on late nineteenth century Bulgarian agrarian conflicts over peasant indebtedness and tax resistance, there is little mention of rural anti-Semitism (Chary 1972; Crampton 1987).

The picture that emerges from a survey of Bulgaria's economy before 1939 is that Bulgarian Jews did not stand out by virtue of their exorbitant wealth or their domination over any branches of the Bulgarian economy. Rather, Bulgarian Jews were more likely to reside at the lower rung of the economic ladder. For instance, in 1940 Jews comprised fewer than 5% of Bulgarian doctors and less than 3 percent of Bulgarian lawyers (Benbassa & Rodrigue 1995; Todorov 1995). Thus it should come as no surprise that the Nazi accusation during the interwar period and World War II that Jews were the agent of worldwide capitalist exploitation failed to garner widespread acceptance in Bulgaria (Bar Zohar 1998; Todorov 1999).

This contrasts sharply with Romania, where Jews represented a large portion of the middle class and controlled major portions of wealth. For instance, Jews residing in the Old Kingdom provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia were overwhelmingly urban and engaged in commerce or small industry. Wallachia, with Bucharest as its capital and major city, had a larger native middle class than Moldavia. At the time of unification while Jews constituted 2% of the Wallachian population they




constituted roughly 10.7% of the Moldavian population. Anti-Semitism displayed greater intensity in Moldavia since the emerging Moldavian bourgeoisie found itself competing with an already entrenched Jewish middle class (Almog 1990; Janos 1978).

Butnaru (1992) notes that numbers of Jews of northern Moldavia succeeded in securing loans from Austrian banks in order to secure leases and consequently incurred the wrath of many non-Jewish tenants who were competing with the Jews for these leases. Remarkably, in 1899, Jews leased 72.4% of the total acreage leased by Romanian large estates (Janos 1978). Romanian nobles, according to Iancu (1978), used Jews to block the rise of the native Romanian bourgeoisie. The role of Jews as agents of the landed elites and as leasers of major holdings employing Romanian peasants placed Jews in the position of perceived exploiters of the Romanian peasantry and thus contributed to the growing resentment of Jewish economic domination and exploitation (Iancu 1978).

Fueling economic anti-Semitism was the overrepresentation of Jews in many of the professions in Romania. In the interwar period, for instance, Jews comprised between 4 and 5% of the Romanian population yet held a disproportionate presence in many professions, including law, medicine, and journalism. According to the official Bulletin periodique de la presse roumaine of June 19, 1937 Jews made up 80% of the engineers in the textile industry, more than 50% of doctors in the Army Medical Corps, and 70% of journalists. Jews comprised 15% of all university students though in certain academic areas like pharmacy and medicine Jews made up between 30 and 40% of the student body. Jews were also reported to constitute two-thirds of the population of white-collar workers. In Bucharest alone, Jews were believed to comprise nearly 80% of employees of banks and commercial enterprises, 40% of all lawyers, and 99% of the brokers on the Bucharest Stock Exchange (Nagy- Talevera 1970; Volovici 1991; Weber 1965).

POLITICAL ANTI-SEMITISM

By political anti-Semitism we refer to a root of anti-Semitism emanating from a perceived fear that Jews aim to control the state's political apparatus and/or achieve world power. Prior to 1879 political anti-Semitism was largely fueled by the belief that Jews were overrepresented as political advisors to monarchs, emperors or presidents. After 1879 political anti-Semitism experienced a dramatic upswing with the proliferation of political parties and movements and the popularization of widespread myths of a Jewish conspiracy to achieve world power. In particular, post- 1879 political anti-Semitism focused on the presumed association of Jews with political parties and movements challenging the basis of the existing social order. Chiefly among these new parties and movements were the socialist or Marxist groups, which steadily gained prominence in Europe after 1879. These parties were perceived to represent a major threat to the interests of elite and middle class groups. Jews and socialism were inextricably tied in the eyes of anti-Semites for numerous




reasons. According to many anti-Semites the connection between socialism and Jews seemed real. They backed their claim by contending that Karl Marx, the founder of revolutionary socialism, was Jewish; many leaders of the socialist and, later, Communist parties were Jewish; and socialism's and Marxism's internationalist appeal appeared to coincide with the notion of a Jewish messianic tendency (Lindemann 1997; Wilson 1982). The successful Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 and the subsequent attempts by revolutionary socialists to seize power throughout Europe shocked millions of people in the West and catapulted political anti-Semitism to centerstage.

If the strength of the political left is positively correlated with political anti- Semitism then, at first glance, Bulgaria should appear as a more hospitable environment for political anti-Semitism than Romania. Ironically, for a country that had less than 10% of its population employed in industry on the eve of World War II, Bulgaria's fledgling socialist movement comes as a big surprise. In election after election during the early interwar period the Bulgarian communist and socialist parties typically drew from one-sixth to one-quarter of the popular vote (combined). For instance, in the March 28, 1920 national parliamentary elections, the communists and socialists tallied roughly 26% of the popular vote (Rothschild 1959:102).

Did the surprisingly stellar performance of the political left in Bulgaria produce a rise of anti-Semitism? The evidence points to no such increase. The explanation for this, we contend, resides largely in the fact that Jews were not alleged to be disproportionately involved in the Bulgarian Marxist movement. As both Chary (1972) and Oren (1973) emphasize, in contrast to the Communist parties of Eastern Europe, the Bulgarian Communist party stands out for the relative dearth of Jews as leaders. Rather than discontented minorities, as was the case in Romania, Bulgarian nationals comprised the backbone of the Bulgarian Communist party throughout the interwar period (Chary 1972; Meyer 1953; Oren1973).

In the case of Romania the lack of industrial development retarded the growth of a socialist labor movement before WWI. Though a small socialist movement sprung forth in the 1890s within which Jews played a leading role, political anti- Semitism as an expression of the threat of Jewish socialism would only be seen as a potent challenge after 1917. Political anti-Semitism in post-1917 Romania did not emanate chiefly from the size of the socialist constituency as was often the case in Western Europe but rather from Romania's fear of Soviet Russian irrendentism and the overrepresentation of Jews in the leadership of the Romanian left. The specter of"Red Revolution" after 1917 brought political anti-Semitism to the forefront. Whereas the emergence of mass-based revolutionary Marxist parties fuelled the red scare in Western Europe the cause of the red scare and the popularity of political anti-Semitism in Romania derived largely from other sources. The fear of revolutionary socialism after 1917 had much to do with the seizure of power by revolutionary Marxists in neighboring Russia and Hungary and the incorporation




into Romania of former Hungarian and Russian territories. That the worldwide press gave inordinate attention to the fact that Jews played a leading role in the Russian and Hungarian communist revolutions further bolstered Romanian political anti-Semitism. Reports issued forth from Romanian authorities in the aftermath of World War I that Soviet, Hungarian, and Ukrainian communist agents were infiltrating the local Romanian communist organizations organizations populated largely by Jews in the newly acquired Bessarabia, Bukovina, and Transylvania (Livezeanu 1995). That the Jews in Bessarabia and Bukovina were of Russian origin and that Soviet Russia refused to recognize Romanian claims to Bessarabia helped link anti-Semitism to anti-Communism (King 1980; Mendelsohn 1983; Treptow 1996; Vago 1975). Furthermore, the Romanian Communist Party in its propaganda played up its role as the defenders of both the interests of the working class and Jews during the interwar period (Fischer-Galati 1981; Janos 1978; King 1980).

We argue that the economic position of Jews in Romania relative to Bulgaria and the greater association of Jews with communist leadership in Romania should bear on how these societies reacted to changing economic conditions and increased Jewish immigration during the first part of the twentieth century.

Data and Measures

To empirically compare popular anti-Semitism as expressed through acts and attitudes for Bulgaria and Romania, this study systematically examines two rich sources of data. One of the most invaluable historical sources of information on Jews and Jewish issues is the American Jewish Year Book (AJYB). The AJYB has been published annually since 1899 and contains a section dedicated to summarizing leading news events of the previous year from around the world. Included among the types of events covered are changes in laws pertaining to Jews and accounts of violence against Jews. The news events were categorized by country and, with few exceptions the events were identified by day, month, and year in which they occurred. Because, among other things, the AJYB served as a digest of anti-Semitic acts, it is an excellent source of historical information on anti-Semitic events. We systematically read the annual accounts of Jewish issues that happened in or pertained to Bulgaria 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. Anti-Semitic acts ranged from false accusations against Jews to murderous riots (see Table 1 for typology). Occasionally we encountered an act that could realistically fit into more than one category. In this case, we went with the more serious category or further examined the context of the act. 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." Our typology is designed to be approximate and descriptive, and our argument is that anti-Semitism in general should vary according to the nation's economic conditions, the size of the Jewish population, and support for leftist political parties, at least where Jews are associated with economic and political threats. Thus, our dependent variable 'anti-Semitic acts' is the total number of acts recorded from the AJYB for a given year in the respective country.

As is the case with much historical data, our data have some limitations. 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. For instance, editors of the AJYB may have included information that they found noteworthy, and anti-Semitic occurrences in remote areas may not have been communicated to the editors. We feel this would be a more serious issue had we investigated minor anti-Semitic incidents, such as name calling or petty assaults by non-Jews against Jews. But we largely examine serious incidents of anti- Semitism, and thus we feel it is equally likely that such serious incidents were reported across the two countries and over time. Given this emphasis on serious anti-Semitic conduct and the absence of alternative sources of information on popular anti-Semitism, we feel the information contained in the AJYB can serve as a useful tool for examining variation in popular anti-Semitic acts across space and time.2

Still, an examination of anti-Semitic acts alone provides us with a rather limited understanding of anti-Semitism. People may harbor negative feelings toward individuals or groups yet never engage in an explicit action against them. A more thorough investigation of the rise of and societal variation in anti-Semitism requires an empirical assessment of popular attitudes toward Jews. Despite some limitations as a source of historical information, the newsprint medium is a most valuable source of information on popular anti-Semitic attitudes before the Holocaust. Today, we rely largely on survey research to assess people's racial, religious, gender, and ethnic attitudes, but this information-gathering technique was practically nonexistent before the 1940s. An examination of newspapers provides us with a comparable tool to assess what people were reading about Jews and Jewish issues in our two countries and how the coverage may have differed from country to country and year to year. The years 1899 to 1939 fall within "the golden age of journalism" (Gannon 1971). Gannon reminds us that before the advent of television, for the vast majority of people the newspaper press was the sole purveyor of information about the outside world. Newspapers served as a principal means by which average citizens became informed and by which popular attitudes on numerous issues took shape. Kauders (1996:5) notes that newspapers "also reflect what was read, believed, and called for at the time more closely than many other printed records we have at our disposal," and newspapers serve as an important resource that enables people to make sense of issues in the news (Gamson 1992).




TABLE 1: Types of Anti-Semitic Acts in Bulgaria and Romania, 1899-1939

Country

Bulgaria Romania Total

Type of anti-Semitic act

1. Laws/acts of discrimination*

2 . Laws/acts forcing Jews to leave posts appointments, or lose businesses*

3. Riots with vandalism, destruction of

property, physical assault and/or murder

4. Formation of anti-Semitic groups, protest speeches, leafleting

5. Laws/acts against Jewish immigration or naturalization; expulsions, citizenship reversals or deportation*

6. Riots and demonstrations

(no violence or vandalism reported) 7. Media attacks

8. Laws/acts against Jewish practices 9. Violent acts on people; murder

10. Raids, confiscations, or shutdowns; dissolved organizations

11. Vandalism or destruction of property 12. False accusations, arrest, or

imprisonment 13. Boycotts or strikes

4(9%) 75(17%)

2(4%) 44(10%)

8(17%) 91(21%)

5(11%) 36(8%)

7(15%) 36(8%)

6(13%) 46(11%)

0(0%) 3 (7%)

6(13%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 3 (7%)

6(1%) 20 (5%)

41(10%) 8 (2%)

13 (3%)

5(1%)

2(4%) 10(2%)

Total 46 (100%) 431(100%) 477(100%)

Note: Column percentages are in parentheses. Column percentages do not add up to exactly 100% because of rounding.

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).

For these reasons newspapers with large circulation should have played an

important function in creating and shaping popular attitudes towards Jews. For each country we examine the daily newspaper with the largest national circulation. We analyze Universul in Romania between the years 1899 and 1939 - years

79(16%)

46(10%)

99 (21%)

41(9%)

43 (9%)

54(11%)

6(1%) 23 (5%)

47(10%) 8 (2%)

13 (3%) 8 (2%)

12(3%)




corresponding to the analysis of the American Jewish Year Book. For Bulgaria we examine Utro for the years 1911, the first year Utro was published, through 1939.3

Our sample of newspaper articles consists of all articles from the fifteenth of the month for every month for the years 1899 to 1939 in Romania and 1911 to 1939 in Bulgaria. For each article, native Bulgarian and Romanian speakers read the respective newspapers. The readers identified and noted the date, issue and page number of each article that mentioned Jews or Jewish issues. The information from the article was then coded for anti-Semitic content. We coded whether the article was favorable, unfavorable, or neutral towards Jews and whether the article contained political or economic anti-Semitism.4 Our dependent variable 'anti- Semitic attitudes' is the number of articles unfavorable towards Jews in a year in the respective countries (see Table 2 for descriptive information). We also coded whether the article made reference to any political or economic anti-Semitism. An article was coded as containing economic anti-Semitism if its content implicitly or explicitly emphasized alleged negative Jewish economic practices, such as cheating, money lending, profit-making, hoarding, controlling markets and manipulating prices, or Jews were portrayed as avaricious, cheap, or greedy. Political anti-Semitism referred to implicit or explicit emphasis on Jewish political activities, such as associations with Marxism, Bolshevism, Communism, controlling governments, divided loyalties, internationalism, unpatriotic worldwide conspiracy, or as seekers of world domination.

As stated above, we contend that anti-Semitic acts and attitudes should vary with economic conditions, the relative size of the Jewish population, and support for leftist parties, although we stipulate conditions for these associations. We measure economic conditions by gross domestic product (GDP) of the country for a given year. Specifically, we measure GDP as the total Gross Domestic Product per capita for a given year, expressed in units of one thousand. The GDP per capita are in 1990 dollars and are drawn largely from Maddison (1995) and Good and Ma (1998). Bulgarian and Romanian GDP figures are yearly only from 1925 to 1939 but are decennial for the period prior to 1925. For these earlier years, we interpolated the GDP figures based on the nearest preceding and proceeding figures. Our measure of Jewish population size is the percentage of the population that is Jew- ish in a country for a given year. The AJYB furnishes annual figures of Jewish population for each country between 1899 and 1939. As with GDP, missing data on Jewish immigration were interpolated based on the values of the preceding and proceeding years.

Finally, we measure support for the political left by the percentage of all votes cast for the leftist parties in Bulgaria5 and Romania.6 All national election results covering the period of 1899 to 1939 for the respective countries have been gath- ered from Flora (1983), Mackie and Rose (1982), Dogan (1946), Oren (1973), Rothschild (1959), and Kazasov (1949). In off election years, we carried over the figure from the most recent election year.




TABLE 2: Newspaper Coverage of Jews in Bulgaria and Romania, 1911- 1939

Romania Bulgaria

Article content

Article generally discusses Economic anti-Semitism* 16 (18%) 11 (7%) Political anti-Semitism* 21(24%) 15 (10%)

Article is unfavorable towards Jews and discusses Economic anti-Semitism* 14 (16%) 8 (5%) Political anti-Semitism* 15 (17%) 4 (3%)

Article's view on Jews Coverage of Jews is*

Favorable 6 (7%) 24 (15%) Unfavorable 36 (41%) 10(6%) Neutral 46 (52%) 114(73%) Could not identify 8 (5%)

N 88 156

Note: Data are missing for the year 1935.

* X2 p < .05

Method

We test the relationship between anti-Semitism and our independent variables - economic conditions, size of the Jewish population, and support for leftist parties - using negative binomial regression. Negative binomial models are appropriate because our dependent variables, anti-Semitic acts and attitudes, are counts with

highly skewed distributions.7 To statistically control for the risk of our outcome variables, we include the number of Jews in the population (logged) as an "exposure factor" using the STATA data analysis program.8

Results

Our examination of the American Jewish Year Book reveals substantial differences between the two countries with regards to anti-Semitism. For the time period of interest, we tallied 431 anti-Semitic acts for Romania, compared to just 46 in

Bulgaria (Table 1). Likewise, the Romanian newsprint portrayed Jews in an unfavorable manner in over 40% of the Romanian articles, compared to 6% of




TABLE 3: Negative Binomial Regression Coefficients for Predictors of Anti-Semitic Acts andAttitudes in Bulgaria and Romania before 1939

Romania Bulgaria

Acts Attitudes Attitudes Acts Attitudes 1 2 3 4 5

GDP -.274* -.997* -.875* .501" 1.110* (.131) (.317) (.304) (.168) (.468)

Jewish population .136 -.221 -2.191" .959 2.349 (.319) (.714) (1.033) (1.378) (4.313)

Leftist vote .135 -.168 -6.029* .187* .339

(.126) (.261) (2.735) (.092) (.266)

Jewish population * 1.101* Leftist voting (.504)

Constant 3.749* 11.604 22.898* -13.140* -27.033 (2.858) (6.306) (6.634) (4.231) (14.135)

N 41 41 41 41 28

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses. Analyses for Romania use all available years (1899-1939). The substantive results replicate for "anti-Semitic attitudes" when analyzing 1911-39 and when

omitting the year 1935, years for which we had no data from Bulgarian newspapers

*p<.05

Bulgarian articles (Table 2). The Bulgarian press, in contrast, wrote about Jews in a favorable context more than twice as often as the Romanian press (15% vs. 7%). Our suggestion that Jews were associated with economic and political problems to a greater degree in Romania than Bulgaria is supported by our content analysis. As depicted in Table 2, newspaper coverage in Romania was about two and a half times more likely to discuss economic or political anti-Semitism than the Bulgarian press. This difference becomes even larger when we examine articles that were unfavorable towards Jews and discussed economic or political anti-Semitism.

Models 1 and 4 of Table 3 suggest economic conditions have very different effects in the two countries. As expected, anti-Semitic acts in Romania increased when economic conditions worsened (model 1).9 While we had expected no association in Bulgaria, the results in Table 3 indicate a positive association between anti-Semitic acts and economic conditions in Bulgaria.10 The strong negative association between economic conditions and Romanian anti-Semitic acts is largely in line with our theoretical predictions. Our prediction of a significant interaction between group size and leftist support is not supported for anti-Semitic acts in Romania (results not shown). Yet, we find greater support for this hypothesis




when examining anti-Jewish attitudes. As with anti-Semitic acts, GDP has a significant and positive effect on anti-Semitic attitudes in Bulgaria, yet none of the other predictor variables in either the main effects model or in interaction models show significant effects (see model 5 in Table 3; interaction model not shown). This contrasts sharply with the results from Romania. As with anti-Semitic acts, anti-Jewish attitudes in Romania rise when economic conditions worsen (models 2 and 3 in Table 3). Further, the interaction model suggests the size of the Jewish population significantly increases anti-Semitic attitudes only when support for leftist parties is high (model 3 in Table 3),11 while the effect is negative and weaker when support for leftist parties is low. It appears the size of the Jewish population is important when accompanied by a perceived political threat.

Conclusion

This research sought to advance two objectives. First, we sought to provide a descriptive account of Balkan anti-Semitism prior to WWII. To date, most comparisons of Romanian and Bulgarian anti-Semitism focused on the treatment of Jews during WWII, yet said little of the disparate treatment of Jews in the earlier part of the twentieth century. Our descriptive account suggests vehement anti- Semitism in Romania between 1899 and 1939, yet anti-Jewish sentiments and actions were relatively scant in Bulgaria. We believe this research represents the first empirical research on Romanian and Bulgarian anti-Semitism prior to WWII.

Second, we specified conditions under which Jews are more likely to be singled out as scapegoats during times of social or economic turmoil. We argued that the disproportionate representation of Jews in the middle class in Romania, particularly in positions that control financial resources, rendered Jews as blameworthy for economic deterioration. This notion was supported in our empirical model. Moreover, we find some support for our contention that the size of the Jewish population matters only in places where Jews were associated with subversive political parties and when those parties gain strength. We suggest future work on prejudice and inter-group relations give further consideration not just to the relative size of subordinate groups, but also to the political agenda with which such groups are associated.

In sum, our results suggest changing structural conditions alone are not pre- dictive of anti-Semitism. Rather, where Jews are overrepresented in the middle- class and occupy middleman positions, they are more apt to be singled out in times of economic stagnation or presumably during other social crises. This work may also bear on other aspects of prejudice. In places where minority groups tend to acquiesce to majority group demands, we would not expect scapegoating during turbulent times. When minority groups support agendas at odds with the status




quo, however, prejudice should increase as economic conditions worsen and as numeric representation of the minority group increases.

Notes

1. Though the opinion of most scholars studying anti-Semitism within Bulgaria points to relatively low levels of Bulgarian anti-Semitism, Tamir's (1997) work is a notable exception. Notwithstanding Tamir's assessment, there remains a near consensus among scholars regarding Bulgaria's favorable treatment of Jews.

2. A note regarding the coding process and intercoder 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 (but trained the same) research assistants re-read 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.

3 Information on newspaper circulation comes from published volumes of Editor and Publisher International Yearbook, which is the most authoritative industry reference guide. We also referred to the volumes of the Newspaper Press Directory for information on the newspapers' circulation, political identification, ownership, and origins.

4. Coders assigned an unfavorable orientation to an article if the author's tone was clearly anti-Semitic. Conversely, if the author of the article spoke in defense of Jews, then the article was coded as favorable. If the article simply reported on an event without taking a side, the article was assigned a neutral tone. We also coded whether the article contained political, religious, racial or economic anti-Semitism, and a batch of questions indicating whether Jews were perceived as having too much power in society or seen as deviant or criminal (see Brustein 2003: Appendix A for questionnaire). We do not present these

descriptive results here, but they are available from the authors upon request.

5. Leftist support in Bulgaria included votes for the Social Democratic Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, and the Worker Party.

6. Leftist support in Romania included votes for the Social Democratic Party, the Socialist Party, and the Worker and Peasant Bloc.

7. The AJYB and newspaper data in both countries include many zero counts and are too skewed for Ordinary Least Squares regression.

8. The STATA output does not provide estimates for the exposure factor, and thus it is not reported in this analysis. This exposure factor was included in all models presented here.




9. While the coefficient for size of the Jewish population (measured as a percentage of total population) is negative in models 1 through 3, the bivariate associations between the outcome variables and Jewish population size were positive.

10. Subsequent analysis suggests a sizeable number of acts occurred in the later years (1935-39). During these years the alliance with Hitler's Germany developed and, contemporaneously, there was a sharp increase in GDP. When controlling for the years 1935-39 GDP was statistically nonsignificant in our model for Bulgaria.

11. This model is for the years 1899-1939. Findings for anti-Semitic attitudes replicate when examining the period 1911-39, the years for which we obtained data from the

Bulgarian newspaper. To interpret the interaction effect we examined the effect of Jewish

population size when leftist support was low (approximately one standard deviation below the mean) and when leftist support was high (approximately one standard deviation above the mean). The mean and standard deviation for leftist voting in Romania were 2.53 and 1.47, respectively. When leftist voting was low the effect of Jewish population size was -1.09 (-2.191 + 1.101[1] = -1.09), and when leftist voting was high the effect was +2.213 (-2.191 + 1.101[4] = 2.213).

References

Almog, Smuel. 1990. Nationalism and Anti-Semitism in Modern Europe 1815-1945. Pergamon Press.

Andreski, Stanislav. 1963. "An Economic Interpretation of Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe." Jewish Journal of Sociology 5:201-13.

Bar-Zohar, Michael. 1998. Beyond Hitler's Grasp: The Heroic Rescue of Bulgaria's Jews. Holbrook, MA: Adams Media.

Arendt, Hannah. 1975. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace.

Ben-Ya'akov, Avraham. 1997. "The Bulgarian Jewish Community 1879-1950: A Model of Zionist Fulfillment." Shevut 22:184-205.

Benbassa, Esther, and Aron Rodrigue. 1995. The Jews of the Balkans: The Judeo- Spanish Community, Fifteenth to Twentieth Centuries. Blackwell.

Bimbaum, Pierre. 1992. Anti-Semitism in France: A Political Historyfrom Leon Blum to the Present, trans. by Miriam Kochan. Blackwell.

Blalock, Jr., Hubert. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority Group Relations. Wiley.

Brustein, William I. 2003. Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust. Cambridge University Press.

Butnaru, I.C. 1992. The Silent Holocaust: Romania and its Jews. Greenwood Press.

Chary, Frederick B. 1972. The Bulgarian Jews and the Final Solution 1940-1944. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Crampton, R.J. 1987. A Short History of Modern Bulgaria. Cambridge University Press.

Dogan, Matei. 1946. Analiza Statistic A Democraciei Parlamentare din Romania. Anexa 29 Tabele. Bucuresti: Editura Partidului Social-Democrat.

Ettinger, Shmuel. 1988. "Jew-Hatred in its Historical Content." Pp. 1-12 in Antisemtism through the Ages, edited by Shmuel Almog. Trans. Nathan H. Reisner. Pergamon Press.




Fein, Helen. 1979. Accountingfor Genocide: National Responses and Jewish Victimization During the Holocaust. Free Press.

Fein, Helen. 1987. "Explanations of the Origin and Evolution of Antisemitism." Pp. xx-xx in The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contexts of Modern Antisemitism, vol. 1, edited by H. Fein. Walter de Gruyter.

Fischer-Galati, Stephen. 1981. "The Radical Left and Assimilation: The Case of Romania." Pp. 89- 104 in Jewish Assimilation in Modern Times, edited by Bela Vago. Westview Press.

Flora, Peter. 1983. State, Economy, and Society in Western Europe, 1815-1975, vol. 1. Frankfurt:

Campus Verlag.

Gamson, William. 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge University Press.

Gannon, Franklin Reid. 1971. The British Press and Germany 1936-1939. Clarendon Press.

Good, David F., and Thomas Ma. 1998. "New Estimates of Income Levels in Central and Eastern

Europe, 1870-1910," Table 3 in Von der Theorie zur Wirtschaftspolitik-ein Oesterreichischer

Weg. Festschrift zum 65. Geburstag von Erich Streissler, edited by F Baltzarek, F Butschek, and G. Tichy. Stuttgart: Lucius/Lucius.

Haskell, Guy H. 1994. From Sofia to Jaffa: The Jews of Bulgaria and Israel. Wayne State University Press.

Iancu, Carol. 1978. Les Juifs en Roumanie (1866-1919): De L'Exclusion a L'Emancipation. Aix- en-Provence: Editions de l'Universite de Provence.

Janos, Andrew C. 1978. "Modernization and Decay in Historical Perspective: The Case of Romania." Pp. 72-116 in Social Change in Romania, 1860-1940, edited by K. Jowitt. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies.

Katz, Jacob. 1980. From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism, 1700-1933. Harvard University Press.

Kauders, Anthony. 1996. German Politics and the Jews: Duesseldorf and Nuremberg 1910-1933. Clarendon Press.

Kazasov, Dimo. 1949. Burni Godini (1918-1944). Sofia: Naroden Pechat.

King, Robert R. 1980. A History of the Romanian Communist Party. Hoover Institution Press.

Lindemann, Albert S. 1997. Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. Cambridge University Press.

Livezeanu, Irina. 1995. Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: Regionalism, Nation Building and Ethnic Struggle, 1918-1930. Cornell University Press.

Mackie, Thomas T., and Richard Rose. 1982. The International Almanac of Electoral History, 2d ed. Facts on File.

Maddison, Angus. 1995. Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Mallinger, Stephen Mark. 1996. A BriefIntroduction to the Jewish Community of Bulgaria. Sofia: Riva Books.

Marrus, Michael R. 1985. The Unwanted: European Refugees in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press.

Mendelsohn, Ezra. 1983. The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars. Indiana University Press.




Meyer, Peter. 1953. "Bulgaria." Pp. 559-629 in The Jews in the Soviet Satellites, edited by Peter. Meyer, Bernard D. Weinryb, Eugene Duschinsky, and Nicolas Sylvain. Syracuse University Press.

Nagy-Talavera, Nicholas M. 1970. The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in

Hungary and Rumania. Hoover Institution Press.

Oren, Nissan. 1973. Revolution Administered: Agrarianism and Communism in Bulgaria. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pauley, Bruce F 1992. From Prejudice to Persecution: A History of Austrian Anti-Semitism.

University of North Carolina Press.

Payne, Stanley G. A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. University of Wisconsin Press.

Rothschild, Joseph. 1959. The Communist Party of Bulgaria: Origins and Development 1883- 1936. Columbia University Press.

Ruppin, Arthur. 1934. The Jews in the Modern World. Macmillan.

Shapiro, Paul A. 1974. "Prelude to Dictatorship in Romania: The National Christian Party in Power, December 1937-February 1938." Pp. 45-88 in Canadian-American Slavic Studies, VIII, 1 (Spring).

Strauss, Herbert A. 1993. "Hostages of World Jewry: On the Origin of the Idea of Genocide in German History." Pp. 165-73 in Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism 1870-1933/39 Germany-Great Britain-France, vol. 3/1, edited by Herbert A. Strauss. Walter de Gruyter.

Tamir, Vicki. 1979. Bulgaria and Her Jews: The History of a Dubious Symbiosis. Yeshiva University Press.

Todorov, Tzvetan. 1999. The Fragility of Goodness: Why Bulgaria's Jews Survived the Holocaust, trans. Arthur Denner. Princeton University Press.

Todorova, Olga. 1995 "The Nineteenth-Century Bulgarians' Perception of the Jews." Etudes

balkaniques 3-4:30-51.

Treptow, Kurt W. (ed.). 1996. A History of Romania. Columbia University Press.

Vago, Bela. 1975. The Shadow of the Swastika. Farnborough, England: Saxon House for the Institute of Jewish Affairs.

Volovici, Leon. 1991. Nationalist Ideology and Antisemitism: The Case of Romanian Intellectuals in the 1930s. Pergamon Press.

Weber, Eugen. 1965. "Romania." Pp. 501-74 in The European Right: A Historical Profile, edited by Hans Rogger and Eugen Weber. University of California Press.

Weiss, John. 1996. Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany. Ivan R. Dee.



anti-semitism as a response to perceived jewish power: the cases of bulgaria and romania before the...

Documents