I suppose it's possible, in theory, that the Economist does not mean "Eurabia" to be racist. It's also possible, in theory, that they are involved in a good faith attempt to save Europe from its errors. What's the betting?

And that was being an asshole: if the Nazis had successfully invaded the UK (or Ireland) I'm quite sure there would have been lots of people perfectly willing to help round up Jews for slaughter. Likewise in the US. Do you have any idea how widespread that sort of eugenicist  thinking was at the time or how popular fascism was outside of the countries  that implemented it? The importance of WWII's history is that any nation can act incredibly badly when whipped up by dangerous fools. It can happen there, and quite possibly would have.

I don't understand why, when seeing a phenomenon develop, Americans (in particular) require that it develop to the worst pitch of the previous analogues before any comparison can be drawn. Do you think that early 20th C anti-Semitism dropped fully formed from heaven? That 1950's McCarthyism happened in a vacuum? That Hitler came from nowhere and was suddenly a dictator? These things develop over time: "Islamofacism" is being built up to an analogue to Communism by people who need an overarching foe to fit their world-view to. That it's both a religion - Islam - and an ethic group - Arabs - that are being picked on has other disturbing echoes. Think of it as a cross between 20th C anti-semitism, mid 20th C anti-communism with a dash of corporatism thrown in. Makes for a delightful little cocktail. Good before dinner.