Not quite, being that the modern definition of "fascism" varies depending on who you ask. If we referring to Classical Fascism, which was what I was referring to, there are some differences. For example, in Classical Fascism, the state in general was worshipped in the stead of a god, yet in Naziism, it was just Hitler who was worshipped. Another difference is that Fascism was actually very popular among many political thinkers in its time, both European and American, whereas support of Naziism was quite a bit more scarce. This last distinction is a bit fuzzy, so I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong on this particular point, but the military didn't play quite as large a role in Fascism as it did in Naziism.RyQ_TMC said:I'd say it's a bit like saying that a cow's a mammal, not an animal. Nazism drew heavily from fascism, and the two shared obscene amounts of common ground, and if we only went by the criteria for calling a country 'fascist', then the Third Reich meets them all. The distinction lies almost exclusively in the inherent racism of the Nazi ideology.-Zen- said:Hitler was a Nazi. Mussolini was a fascist.
Also, had Naziism not existed, Fascism, and Mussolini, would probably be looked at with far more approval by modern political thinkers. Before the Nazis and the Fascists started working together on some level, people adored the ideology and Mussolini, especially American muckrakers. However, it is because of the association with Naziism that Fascism is looked down upon.
Granted, I don't support socialism, which is basically what Classical Fascism (and Progressivism) was, but I'm just calling it as I see it.