The response to Kristallnacht by both Germans and the world was quite muted. It occurred in 1938, and the Nazi regime was not only at the height of its power, but had been stripping Jews of their legal rights for over five years.

The german population had already been subjected to a large amount of anti-Semitic propaganda, and by this point, anti-Semitic views had been ingrained in the general society. Like any event, the population did not have a unified response. The majority of the citizenry either supported or remained quiet and apathetic about the events.

That said, there was protest against the event. According to the Deutschland Berichte:

"The protest of the Berlin people against the looting and arson, against the ill-treatment of Jewish men, women and children of all ages was clearly noticeable. You could see the contemptuous looks of the people, you could notice movements expressing indignation and you could even hear words of shame and drastic cursing. On Weinmeisterstrasse a police corporal and a Reichswehr sergeant protected two elderly Jewish women with their six or seven children against a party-mob and led them to a place of refuge."

As well:

"The new measures against the Jews have met with general disapproval from the people. There are of course individuals, especially women, who express their satisfaction, but they are greatly outnumbered by the many Aryans who have voiced their unconditional disapproval of the pogroms and who have offered help to the persecuted Jews in spite of the dangers involved in such assistance. A number of Aryans have taken Jews into their homes during the critical days whereupon they were informed by their landlords that this meant a criminal offence."

I would not put significant weight into the Berichte, however. The source puts heavy credence into referring to "people" without much sourcing and evidence, and I am not aware of any concrete evidence that police officers did, in fact, protect Jewish individuals on Weinmeisterstrasser. Some other reports are probably more accurate in how the general population viewed it -- that the outrage lay in the material destruction, not the harm to the Jewish population. I'm uncertain how much credence to weigh for the Deutschland Berichte, as they serves as a form of exile Magazine. The * Berichte * was highly critical of the Nazi government (and rightfully so), but likely benefitted from painting more of the population as anti-Nazi. Regardless, it is important to take into account in order to try and understand the full reaction. Undoubtedly, some German citizens took Jews into their homes, and some police officers may have defended the Jews. It is only in their lack of specificity that I suspect there is some sort of misleading.

In the Prime Minister of Lower Frankonia's December 1938 (9 December 1938) report, he wrote:

"...The punitive measures, particularly the imposition of a financial penalty, have been generally approved. A majority, especially among the rural population, regrets that the actions have caused valuable items to be destroyed, which, in view of our raw-material position, could more appropriately have benefited the community as a whole... A further complaint was that the action was continued even after the decree by the Reich propaganda Minister ordering its immediate cessation and, in particular, that foodstuffs were deliberately destroyed..."

Some did, in fact, blame the Jews and say that they deserved legal repercussions for their actions. In general, they did not oppose legal persecution, only the destruction and chaos of Kristallnacht. In the monthly report of the Regierungspraesident of Swabia, he we wrote, on 12 December:

"The Jewish murder of the German third secretary in the Paris Legation triggered angry indignation in all sections of the population. It was generally expected that the national government would take some action... The demolishing of display windows, of store contents, and of furniture in homes was viewed as unnecessary destruction of valuable property which, in the final analysis, constituted a loss for the wealth of the German nation... This destruction was in flagrant contradiction to the goals of the Four Year Plan and in particular the just completed collection of used goods."

Again, we can see the continuation of the theme that the destruction of property was the true crime, not the harm to the Jews. He even goes on to write that such a thing provoked

"[A]n unneeded sense of sympathy for the Jews in towns and rural areas."

As a final quote, the National Socialist Teacher's Association in Bayern had a few choice words.

"...the conduct against the Jews in Germany was not condoned by major sections of the population, especially in what regards the repercussions abroad and for the Four-Year-Plan... the population still does not understand the Jewish problem properly, and the myth about decent Jews is still being spread... The Jew as a race is not as yet sufficiently recognized…"

Hopefully these quotations help explain the general view. There was indignation, but much of it was due to the damage to property and goods. Naturally, many also opposed it due to harm it brought to Jewish people, but far from enough that it may prompt any real reaction. The majority of Germans were either in support of or apathetic towards this.

Hopefully this helped answer your question. If you have any follow-ups, I can do my best to answer.

(Also, I hope there are no glaring issues with grammar or phrasing! English is my second language, so I apologize!)

Sources/Citations: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/reactions-to-kristallnacht Yad Vashem Archive 0.51/176. Walter H. Pehle. November 1938—From Reichskristallnacht to Genocide. Berg, New-York/ Oxfrord, 1991. p. 41. Walter H. Pehle. November 1938—From Reichskristallnacht to Genocide. (New-York/ Oxfrord, 1991). pp. 39 Detlev Peukert, Inside Nazi Germany, (Yale University Press, 1987, p. 60 Sarah Gordon, Hitler, Germans and “the Jewish Question,” (Princeton, 1984), pp.176-77.