No reason why this can't be discussed with civility even if we disagree about everything
Re stats. It reminds me of how the advert: 9/10 cats prefer Whiskas became 9/10 owners of cats who expressed an opinion said their cats preferred Whiskas. If the data is derived solely from the 1931 census then it contains a ruddy great unknowable error because that census did not record ethnicity. The census could only demonstrate what languages those of the Jewish Faith (referred to as the 'faith of Moses' in Polish) spoke. It could not demonstrate "that 79% of all Jews declared Yiddish to be their primary language, while only 12% mentioned Polish. The rest chose Hebrew
". If you were a Jew who happened to be a Christian or atheist, you were not part of the 'all Jews' above. And I would suggest the over-representation of Jews in the middle classes would have also made them overrepresented among the atheists, but that's by the by.
Re popularity of BUF and the like - 2 things. One - parties are popular (or not) for a variety of reasons. There seems little to suggest that the popularity of the Nazis in Germany had much to do with their anti-Jewish stance. The BUF was very popular among the ladies because it proposed outlawing the common practice of sacking women from their jobs when they married. It's subsequent un
popularity, I would suggest, had little to do with its anti-Jewish stance and much to do with beating up hecklers at the 1934 party congress, the Cable Street Battle and, perhaps most importantly, in an increasingly anti-German Britain, its association with Germany - both perceived and real. Some have also suggested that parading around in silly uniforms and giving silly salutes did nothing to impress the British voter who tends to be allergic to this sort of poposity. Long and short being that it was poor PR choices followed by a bunch of copper-bottomed sea-going PR disasters that did for the BUF rather than its policies.
Two - just because something is not present in politics and the media, does not mean it does not exist at the grassroots level. I was unable to find any data on violence againt Jews in the UK 1935-37, so I compared your Polish data with 3 recent peak years (2014-2016) in the UK (data collected by CPT). Per capita the rate was 0.0002 in Poland v 0.00002 in the UK, if we take death and GBH only in the British data into account. If we control for such factors as societal norms for violence, relative wealth, level of integration and add woundings resulting from ABH to the British dataset, the results would not be wildly different between the two countries I suspect. And this is the 21st century, for goodness sake!
However the Britons of Jewish descent are significantly more integrated into British Society - simply put they don't stand out. The competition with the white poor communities in Britain today are, for example, Pakistani. Anyone got figures on that one for comparison? Serious question: I couldn't find them; ie there are easily accessible compound figures on all hate crime against all Asians from the Indian subcontinent but not dissected out into serious physical assaults, verbal abuse etc the way the CPT data is. The best I could get was that an individual with Indian ethnicity had a 0.2% chance of being the target of a hate crime per annum and about 8 times more likely to be the target of a hate crime than a white Briton.
And this is where we come to an important point as far as this discussion is concerned. The targets of the majority of hate crimes in the UK are white males. This, of course, is the product of the white population being the largest. Nevertheless, racist assaults by Asian or Black people on White people occur, just as the other way around and the point this demonstrates, sadly perhaps, is that this type of violence is a normal part of human behaviour. All the Nazis had to do, was to make it intellectually acceptable.