The definition you linked calls almost any dictatorship as a fascism. The article makes difference between "random dictatorship, monarchy, what have you" and "fascism specifically". That being said, even by your definition Stalins Russia did not had that much of a racial component, so it might just be one of those that fall out.
The original article also does not really fit the Socialist Russia that much. It was seeking world domination and did not minded to start a war, but that is the thing - it was concerned more with reality of winning then with appearance of strength for aesthetic purposes. It had own machismo, it had disdain to intellectualism, but both did in fact limited its capabilities.
It's a bit light on rigor than I hoped when I saw the title. It describes 3 fascist or near-fascist states that lost in recent history: Germany, Italy, Franco's Spain. But I wanted to know if Rome under Julius Caesar would be considered fascist? Alexander of Macedon? And also non-western states as well.
IMO it is less about fascism but wars of conquests that are more likely to be doomed to fail. Maybe fascism is a requirement for desires of conquest so they are tightly related.
For conquest to succeed it must be quick and overwhelming. Otherwise it becomes a war of attrition against an enemy that has way better motivation than your army. But also, even if you have a decisive victory, it is almost impossible to stop at just one victory because the war machine will be thirsty for more and your entire economy will be dependent on it, so you have to keep going until total failure.
One difficulty is that fascism is a very modern phenomenon, in the sense that it stood out to 20C societies because they had known alternative forms of state power, whereas someone in 14C England, say, would not have known any other form of governance than the unchecked power of the State (strictly, the King) and in particular the use of force to compel behavior, which is of course the hallmark of fascism. It would be hard to recognize fascism unless you also knew what a democracy (say) or some other ruling mode was like.
According to the dictionary definition of fascism (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fascism), Stalin's Russia was also "fascist", and won many wars, invading and occupying free democracies (Poland) for years.
The definition you linked calls almost any dictatorship as a fascism. The article makes difference between "random dictatorship, monarchy, what have you" and "fascism specifically". That being said, even by your definition Stalins Russia did not had that much of a racial component, so it might just be one of those that fall out.
The original article also does not really fit the Socialist Russia that much. It was seeking world domination and did not minded to start a war, but that is the thing - it was concerned more with reality of winning then with appearance of strength for aesthetic purposes. It had own machismo, it had disdain to intellectualism, but both did in fact limited its capabilities.
It's a fun read and an interesting premise.
It's a bit light on rigor than I hoped when I saw the title. It describes 3 fascist or near-fascist states that lost in recent history: Germany, Italy, Franco's Spain. But I wanted to know if Rome under Julius Caesar would be considered fascist? Alexander of Macedon? And also non-western states as well.
IMO it is less about fascism but wars of conquests that are more likely to be doomed to fail. Maybe fascism is a requirement for desires of conquest so they are tightly related.
For conquest to succeed it must be quick and overwhelming. Otherwise it becomes a war of attrition against an enemy that has way better motivation than your army. But also, even if you have a decisive victory, it is almost impossible to stop at just one victory because the war machine will be thirsty for more and your entire economy will be dependent on it, so you have to keep going until total failure.
One difficulty is that fascism is a very modern phenomenon, in the sense that it stood out to 20C societies because they had known alternative forms of state power, whereas someone in 14C England, say, would not have known any other form of governance than the unchecked power of the State (strictly, the King) and in particular the use of force to compel behavior, which is of course the hallmark of fascism. It would be hard to recognize fascism unless you also knew what a democracy (say) or some other ruling mode was like.