Do you attribute the same relevance, by the way, to Hitler's being an Austrian, Himmler's and Goebbels' being Germans, Stalin's and Beria's being Georgians, etc., or is ethnicity/nationality of world-historical relevance only when if comes to Jews, and are one individual's actions deemed by you to be emblematic of his ethnic/national group's behavior and attitudes only in that case?
As a matter of fact, a number of historians have noted the fact that Austrians were over-represented in the Nazi German police apparatus, and particularly in the anti-Jewish actions, eg Eichmann, Kaltenbrunner, Globocnik, Stangl, and have wondered whether that was pure chance, or whether there was some cultural factor that caused that phenomenon.
It has been suggested that Austrians were more anti-Semitic than Germans proper, for historical reasons, including the presence in Vienna of a large, unassimilated group of "Eastern Jews" that had immigrated from Galicia. Hitler himself, in "Mein Kampf", distinguished between the assimilated Jews of Linz and the caftan-wearing "Ostjuden" he encountered in Vienna ( or claimed he did), and directed his anti-Jewish prejudice against the latter.
The situation was different in Germany, where the Jewish population was largely assimilated, and anti-Jewish prejudice tended to take the form of social discrimination, rather similar to that which existed in Britain.
If it is true that Austrian culture had a greater tendency to anti-Semitism than that of Germany proper, then it is entirely legitimate to speculate whether the presence of Austrians in the ranks of the National-Socialist Party, including of course Hitler himself as leader, gave it a more strongly anti-Semitic nature than would have been the case if it had arisen in North Germany and been led by the Strasser brothers, for example.
In the same way, it is entirely legitimate to speculate as to whether the Jewish origin of Erenburg, and his self-identity as a Jew, which became stronger in the course of the war, was a determining factor in the extreme nature of the anti-German propaganda he produced. If so, that would not have been due to some innate anti-German prejudice in Jewish culture, but rather to the fact that at that particular point in time, Germany was seen, objectively and subjectively, as the main enemy of the Jewish people. At the beginning of the 20th Century, Jews everywhere saw Russia and the Tsar as the main enemy of the Jewish people, and Jewish propaganda against Russia, for example in the Yiddish-language press in the United States, showed many of the extreme and brutal features that appeared 40 years later in Erenburg's anti-German propaganda.
An example of Jewish cultural influences on Erenburg's propaganda occurs in the documentation section of Hoffmann's book "Stalin's War of Extermination". On page 405, Erenburg's article "Wolves they were - wolves they remain", published in the Soviet News Weekly of 15 March 1945, is reproduced. The image of the gentiles among whom the Jews of Eastern Europe lived as "wolves" was a part of Jewish tradition, which taught that the Jews were surrounded by seven tribes of ravening wolves. That image was traditionally applied to the Polish and Russian peasants in the midst of whom the Jews lived, and even today is used by the traditionalist Hassidic Jews of Brooklyn, except that they have transferred the image to the Afro-Americans who surround them. Erenburg simply transferred that traditional image of gentile as wolf to the Germans.
As to Stalin's Georgian origin, I have read histories that attribute certain elements in his modus operandi, eg his extreme clannishness, vindictiveness and secrecy, to the residual influence of aspects of Caucasian tribal culture. Of course, Stalin did not openly identify as a Georgian, but rather as a Russian; however, the Georgian culture in which he was initially raised probably left its mark, for good or ill.
As I pointed out in my original post, part of Erenburg's viciousness may have been due to a personal pathology rather than cultural factors, as Hoffmann believed. Hoffmann compares Erenburg with Streicher, which I think particularly appropriate. Streicher's anti-Semitism had its origin in cultural factors, and was shared with many individuals in Germany and Austria, but the particularly vicious and obscene form it took must surely have been a result of his own perverted sexuality. So it may also have been with Erenburg.