I can't give you a definitive answer as this isn't my specialisation however what I can say after researching into this time period is that yes, there were many countries (not just European either) that held anti-Semitism in high regard but no other countries apart from Germany had Adolf Hitler, so I think Hitler plays a big part in why Germany went as far as "the final solution to the Jewish question".

Hitler wanted to make Germany great again, I'm sure other Anti-Semitics had ideas about how to deal with the Jews but they differed from Hitler's.

You might find it interesting to know that Hitler was willing to see the Jews out of Germany peacefully if the allies agreed to take certain amounts of Jewish refugees. (This was known as the "Evian Conference") Hitler said this about the conference:

I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships

Surprisingly the allies refused to take any more refugees, so the Jews (that hadn't emigrated to Palestine through the Haavara agreement) & so Hitler devised the final solution to get rid of this "issue".

Surprisingly one of the only countries that would let Jews seek asylum was the Dominican Republic which at the time was under another dictator.

It's horrible to think that two months after the conference, Hitler & Chamberlain signed "The Munich Agreement" allowing Hitler the sudetenland making more Jews stateless. Four months after Evian & 5 days after Kristallnacht, The allies devised a rescue effort to migrate Jewish children to safety. This was known as Kindertransport (see this memorial of the effort outside Liverpool Street Station.

Sources:

1. Ian Kershaw's Hitler

2. Allen Wells's Tropical Zion: General Trujillo, FDR, and the Jews of Sosúa

3. Mark J. Harris's Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport

It is really hard to give a definite answer on this one since this is a topic that is still contested and debated.

As for you question, I would split that into two questions:

• The issue of Antisemitism in Germany:

Germany had a tradition of völkisch (racialized) Antisemitism along the lines of several other European nations but the differentiating factor that lead to a new revival on a large scale was the loss in WWI. Extremely soon after Germany had called for an armistice and deposed the Kaiser, the Dolchstoßlegende (stab in the back legend) was formed and gained popularity. Basically, it was a commonly held believe that Germany had not lost because they lost battles or couldn't organize foodstuffs for their population but that so-called inner enemies stabbed it in the back. These so-called inner enemies were identified as Jewish, whether it was Jewish Bolsheviks or Jewish war profiteers. These stereotypes played on an older tradition that Jews can not be German; a discussion that was big during the 19th century when it was hotly debated if Jews should receive freedom of religion and be able to integrate/assimilate into German society. Additionally, it mixed in the stereotype of the Jewish Bolshevik that came with the Russian Bolshevik Revolution as well as the German Revolution and the Munich Soviet Republic.

This view, that also often identified the Weimar Republic with Jewish machinations (Democracy accepted Versailles and was generally not well loved due to disastrous economic policy after the war and so forth) was popular throughout the Weimar times but also got a new push with the economic crisis in 1929. In short, Jews were blamed for the ails of Germany after WWI, going back to the 19th century but also incorporating fears of Bolshevism and unhappiness with capitalism, which as such constitutes not necessarily a unique mix but as an ideology was ramped up because of the specific German post-WWI context.

On to the second part:

• The Holocaust and its implementation:

It is the generally accepted view in historic scholarship that the Nazis didn't necessarily intend to kill all European Jews from the outset. Their goal, as dictated by the ideology of völkischer Antisemitism was the removal of Jews from Germany resp. their sphere of influence. This policy took several shapes: From a discriminatory policy intended to drive the Jews out of German to a rather ineffectual agreement with Zionist groups to the Evian conference my fellow poster mentioned but also the Madagascar plan and the policy of Ghettoization during the war. Make no mistake, there was always a certain willigness to accepted deaths and even mass-deaths as a result of those policies in Nazi political cycles (e.g. the Madagascar Plan) but the actual policy of killing was formed during war time and was the result of what historian Hans Mommsen terms "accumulative radicalization". When faced with fighting their arch-enemy, the Soviet Union, and an ever-growning population of Jews in their sphere of influence, the Nazi leadership decided to first kill off the Soviet Jews (as they were seen as basically the same as the Soviet government) and then started to spread this practice in several steps to all of Europe.

Sources:

• Richard Evan's The Third Reich Triology (heartily recommended reading).

• Ian Kershaw's The Nazi Dictatorship. Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, London 2000.

• Saul Friedländer's books The years of Persecution and The Years of Extermination

• Hans Mommsen's Von Weimar nach Auschwitz. Zur Geschichte Deutschlands in der Weltkriegsepoche. Ausgewählte Aufsätze, Stuttgart 1999.

During the Russian Civil War 100.000 to 200.000 Jews were murdered, mostly by Whites. If we wanna play alternative history, and make an educated guess: If the Whites would've won the Civil War and instituted a reactionary monarchy again, it wouldn't be too much of a far cry that Jews would have suffered heavily. Jews and leftists (or enemies of the monarchy) were basically seen as the same thing. Antisemitism and anti-jewish violence had a long tradition within Eastern Europe/ Russia. If the Whites won and started the settlement of accounts with their enemies it isn't a far reach to think that systematic prosecution of Jews would have happened.

The thing with the Holocaust is, that it would not have worked in Russia in 1920 the way it worked in Germany. The Holocaust needed a highly industrialized, bureaucratic and totalitarian country. The Holocaust was an undertaking that took a lot of administration and state-approved determination.

They weren't. Most of Europe under the German sphere of control willingly and enthusiastically participated in the Final Solution (and here the Final Solution is defined as being every stage from 1) economic and political removal of the Jews from day-to-day life; 2) physical exclusion and separation of Jews from the general population; 3) physical persecution of Jews and destruction and theft of Jewish property; 4) unorganized and organized killing of Jews. EG Poland. Latvia. Lithuania. Estonia. Ukraine. Italy. France. Holland. All of these countries had definite concrete culpability as active collaborators with Germany. A few nations said no. Most notably, Denmark. Denmark stands out as a nation where its population definitely said no to the final solution. But Holland? Nope. Enough collaborators to tip the balance. Blaming Germany and Germany alone for the Holocaust is as counter productive as making a distinction between Germany and Nazi Germany. They are one and the same.

Sources: Browning's Origins of the Final Solution, Lower's Hitler's Furies, Kershaw's Hitler, The Germans, and the Final Solution, Rhodes' Masters of Death... among others. No scholarly or even somewhat scholarly book would limit the Final Solution's operational or implementational boundaries to Germany. Without Ukrainian hatred of Jews, without Ukrainian participation and acquiescence, no Babi Yar. Hence... the Ukraine also went as far as The Final Solution.

The fact of the matter is that many nations had exercised ethnic cleansings themselves, only many years prior. Spain and Britain had both forcibly ejected Jews from their borders earlier in their own history and Britain does not have the best history in treating it's other ethnic groups. Many nations during the Second World war willingly gave up their own Jewish citizenry without any pressure or request, notably Vichy France and that in the final years of the war foreign involvement in the SS was greater than German involvement.

Germany had the sentiment of anti-Semitism at the very top and the opportunity. That's the difference. Other countries had part of the population that had anti-Semitic sentiments and some in government, but it was rare to have such a government that was so uniform in ideology and so strongly anti-Semitic. Secondly, Germany had the opportunity - they created a climate of chaos and war, had control of huge territories, took away control from governments and put it in the hands of the army and created a political environment where such a thing was possible.

For example: Reinhard Heydrich, head of the Reich Security Main Office, recommended the movement of Jews to ghettos in major cities and Göring had them put to work for the German war industry. In a situation of peace, there would be no reason for a security agency to move people. Germany invaded a country and had a new population on its hands. Secondly, in a time of peace, there would be no need to employ people in the war industry - you can always make weapons, but not in these numbers and not with such urgency. Countries would rather keep unemployment down.

Other countries had pogroms and attacks on Jews, especially near and after the end of the war. These attacks were not organized by the government and were closer to Kristallnacht than to the Holocaust.

Having that said, the Independent State of Croatia had its own genocide program targeting Jews, Serbs and Roma people. ISC had the same ingredients: anti-Semitism at the top and opportunity, war. It was on a much smaller scale than Nazi Germany, but it is a smaller state with a smaller army and had control of a smaller territory. Nazi Germany's program was larger because it was a larger state, had control of more territories, more populations and had more time.

Having that said, I must say that you cannot look at Nazi Germany's plans as one big plan. There were several ideologies at play and when it came to action, sometimes the ideology was one thing and the action was another. There were times when there were two contradictory actions made. Nazi Germany kidnapped Polish children that looked "Nordic" while murdering older children and their parents. Nazi Germany deported Polish Jews to the Soviet Union en masse early in the war, and then later in the war started looking for them to bring them back to Poland.

Even in the sphere of theory, there was the völkisch movement and its influence on Nazism, there's Hitler's theories, there's Nordicism, there's Social Darwinism. It was not all one theory nor was it all one plan. There were contradictions and there were competing plans and competing actions.