You'd have to have a notion of what it is to be a 'Nazi' that is so inclusive as to be practically worthless. For all the failings of US foreign policy, it seems pretty irresponsible to equivocate the two. Moreover, the Nazis have no special claim to brutal imperialism, which has been a time-honored tradition since human civilizations have existed. We can call any oppressive regime Nazis if we want, but I would beware those who paint different things as the same.

@transitionsynthesis: Lots of people call any abominable regime Nazi as an insult. That is why I was careful to note this about three quarters of the posting down. If you look at the latter part of the question you'll notice that I point out that Aime Cesaire, Hannah Arendt and Franz Fanon explicitly, in a way that Bertrand Russell does not, pins it on the techniques of colonisation practised on the natives and that were turned back upon the people themselves. Bertrand Russell in the book points out that the USA had a deliberate policy during and after the second world war to take over ...

@transitionsynthesis: the former colonial empires of Europe. This isn't just his opinion, he quotes Eisenhower on helping to elaborate that strategy: "Now let us assume we lost Indo-China. If Indo-China goes, then the tin and tungsten we so greatly value would cease coming. We are after the cheapest way of preventing something terrible - the loss of our ability to get what we want from the riches of the Indo-China territory and from South-East Asia'. That is the trajectory that I'm asking the question on.

Russell always was a bit of a churl... Look, terms like 'Nazi' and 'fascist' have distinct meanings in the political science repertoire, and (prior to Trumpism) nothing in the US has really fit the bill. Even Trumpism isn't quite there, though it definitely falls in the 'wannabe' category. The US is statist, colonial, and authoritarian, with an unfortunate affection for realpolitik (and the international moral turpitude that implies). But 'fascism' implies a territorially expansive ethnostate with corrupt Liberal ideation, which ain't what we got.

@TedWrigley: Russell was called called worse by the New York Times for calling attention to what was happening in Vietnam. They said he "had an unthinking receptivity to the most transparent communist propaganda". Well, I think world opinion has moved on since then and the New York Times has been proved wrong and Russell right on the atrocities and war crimes committed in Vietnam.

@TedWrigley: In fact, he calls out the USA for having one of the most sophisticated systems of propaganda that he has ever witnessed and he calls attention to the fact that journalists, whose job it is to join dots, weren't doing so and this, deliberately. As for the notion of Trumpism being the face of American fascism, this appears to fall into the trajectory indicated into the posting. After all, brutal colonial domination was first practised on natives before being practised on Europe. Thats the point that both Aime Cesaire and Hannah Arendt are making above ...

[shrug...] Russell was a bright but bad-tempered human being. The Vietnam war was a horror show. The New York Times is sometimes wrong. None of that applies to the analytic position I presented. You are wearing your opinions on your sleeve, here...

@Ted Wrigley: There is little analysis in the position that you presented. You merely pointed out that fascism and nazism are distinct terms - however Arendt used one term to cover them both - totalitarianism. How is attempting to take over Indo-China not 'territorially expansive'?

taking over Indo-China is territorial expansion, but the point is that not all territorial expansion is Nazism, nor is all use of propaganda to justify territorial expansion in a democratic constituency Nazism. To act as though the Nazis invented brutal imeprial regimes is to give the Nazis way too much credit. Again, find the first human civilization and you can already find elements of what Russell is talking about. Is the US more sophisticated? Sure, but there's lots of reasons for that and many dynamics that are not at all the same as the dynamics in Nazi Germany.

Should we call ancient Athens Nazis since they engaged in brutal territorial expansion and used propaganda? I guess I'm not clear on what criterion here is doing the work.

@transititonsynthesis: Those points were already understood by Russell. He wrote and I quoted above 'In the course of history there have been many cruel and rapacious empires and systems of imperialist exploitation'. But he added that 'none before have at their disposal the power of the US imperialists'. Ditto for Industrial Germany in Europe at the start of the 20C.

So the criterion is that they're really powerful. So any really powerful imperial regime is Nazi? That can't be the argument.

@MoziburUllah - I pointed out that racism and nazism are distinct terms with relatively clear definitions in political science, and the US (as a rule) does not fit within the definitions. That is analytical. Nazism is a subset or instantiation of the more general category of fascism, but fascism is not a universal term for 'behaviors I do not like,' in the way you seem to be using it.

@transitionsynthesis: That's one criteria and it seems obviously necessary - I don't see anyone being scared of Cyprus turning Nazi - do you? One point he's making is that technological progress has magnified military strength far outweighing anything that could be done before. Nobody before the beginning of the 20C ever contemplated the complete annihilation of life on earth - yet with the stockpile of nuclear weapons that both former USSR and the USA had - that thought was thought. The other point he's making is about racial hierarchies and colonial domination.

@Ted Wrigley: And I pointed out that both terms were subsumed under the term totalitarianism in Arendts analysis. I'm also pointing out - and which you appear to be signally ignoring - that Aime Cesaire, Franz Fanon and Hannah Arendt all described totalitarianism as the outcome of brutal colonial policies. And this does fit exactly in how the USA pursued French colonial policies in Indo-China after they abandoned them.

Particularly USA actions in Chile and Greece were an absolute disgrace, and even when Jimmy Carter took over the the presidency, his administration turned a blind eye to fascism in Argentina.

@Gordon: Russell does actually mention the damning actions of the USA in Greece but not of course Chile, that was before his time. He does however say 'peace cannot be realised by placing hopes on the goodwill of those whose power depends upon such exploitation and on the ever-increasing scale of military production. The system that oppresses the people of the world is international, coordinated and powerful.'

See the American Congress’ Church Committee Report. This was back in the day we had a real Congress here in America.

I know Russell may not mention these reports, but I’m throwing more wood on the fire.

@gordan: Ok, am checking it out now ...

aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/contents.htm But this still does not go into the details. See this book also !!! Chile, The Black Book of American Intervention in Chile. goodreads.com/book/show/… Still not all see Hitchens, Christopher on Kissinger Nixon and how Allende’s assassination occurred in time. Vanity Fair

@gordan: Ok, thanks. will do so. There's a brilliant book on how Latin America was exploited mercilessly during the colonial era by Eduardo Galeano, The Open Veins of Latin America.

sixty percent, that is an awful statistic