It may be that in Poland a similar condition exists which makes the sale of property into Jewish hands a kind of disloyalty to the people generally. Apparently the Poles think so. “Racial prejudice” is not a suf¬ ficient explanation of such beliefs: there is always something pretty tangible beneath them.
The “boycott” was merely this:—an agreement among Poles to trade with Poles. The Jews were num¬ erous, well-to-do, and in control of all the channels of business. They own practically all the real estate in Warsaw. The Jews claimed that the so-called boycott (the Polish name for it is “the co-operatives”) was “persecution.”
Sir H. Rumbold—“It must be further remembered that under the influence of economic changes and owing to the fact that since 1832 the Poles have not been allowed to hold posts in the government, they were gradually obliged to take to trade, and competi¬ tion between the Jewish population and the Poles com¬ menced. This competition became stronger when the Russian Government allowed co-operative and agricul¬ tural societies to be started in Poland. The co¬ operative movement is becoming very strong and will undoubtedly form an important factor in the develop¬ ment of economic relations in Poland, so that indirectly it will be bound to affect the position of the small Jewish trader.
“In so far as the Polish Government are able to do so by legislation or proclamations, the boycotting of the Jews should be prohibited. But I would point out that it is beyond the power of any government to force its subjects to deal with persons with whom they do not wish to deal”