This is such a challenging question, but since no one really gave you an answer, I thought I would try with regards to the Southern Cone in South America. From what I’ve read, a true definition of fascism is challenging to nail down. Some scholars think it should only refer to select European political movements; others are more willing to extend characteristics to movements outside of Europe. Nevertheless, in Argentina, the political happenings of powerful nations like Italy, Germany, Portugal, and Spain in the 1920s and 1930s (nations from which large numbers of immigrants arrived in the Western Hemisphere) were very interesting to the Argentine public, especially conservative elite who struggled against rising leftist parties. As a result, the ideology of fascism existed on the far right, but its hold was limited and fluid.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, fascism appealed to small intellectual circles in the Southern Cone. Argentine writers influenced by fascism wrote for La nueva república and also worked in the Unión Nacional Fascista. Mussolini and Charles Maurras both had small followings in the Argentine army. Most frequently (especially on this subreddit), I see fascism thrown around when discussing Juan Perón. It is no secret that he greatly admired Mussolini. When he came to power he reportedly said, “Mussolini was the greatest man of our century, but he committed certain disastrous errors. I, who have the advantage of his precedent before me, shall follow in his footsteps but also avoid his errors.” Some point to his platform as being fascist, specifically the fear of a possible communist uprising, mobilization of many classes, nationalism, disdain for democracy, and corporatism.

However, fascism in the Southern Cone neither had an extensive following nor had much of a chance of taking power. Additionally, it must be understood as one of many ideologies in the region at the time imported from abroad. Socialism, communism, marxism, corporatism, liberalism, falangism, totalitarianism, and anarchism all influenced thinkers of the time, who searched for solutions to uniquely Argentine problems. In the process, intellectuals mixed ideologies together or ignored key points of these imported ideologies to better suit their needs. For example, the racism of fascism was much more muted among Argentine fascists, as demonstrated by the article “Depopulation, Fascism, and Eugenics in 1930s Argentina” by Andrés Reggiani where the language of eugenics held some sway among intellectuals but remained fluid and debated heavily.

Peronism, a form of populism, is often pointed to as the quintessential Latin American interpretation of fascism, but this assertion has fallen out of favor in the historiography. First, lumping populism and fascism together does not hold up particularly well when one looks at the details of Peronism. For example, Perón mobilized the urban working class, who made up the bulk of his power bloc, against the status quo (unlike fascists who mobilized the upper and middle classes against the left). He won free elections and tolerated political dissent. His avowal of democracy resulted from the repressive relationship between democracy and the entrenched elite, who excluded huge numbers of working class members from democratic influence or significant change. As a result, political polarization, while present, took a much different form in Argentina than Italy or Germany. Most importantly, Perón’s economic policy was rooted in the context of the Cold War, as he attempted to create a “third way” that existed outside the economic models of the US and the USSR. Instead, the historiography has been more concerned in recent years with how Peronism was as much a “bottom-up” political movement as it was a “top-down” movement. Historians, as demonstrated by the excellent historiography at the beginning of The New Cultural History of Peronism, have been more concerned with examining how normal people interacted with, supported, and shaped Perón’s platform. Once again, these people were concerned with the realities they found in Argentina at the end of WWII in a country whose economic promise always seemed out of their reach. Though Peronism has some superficial similarities to fascism, it is better understood as a sociocultural phenomenon which developed in response to uniquely Argentine realities.

So fascism, at least in the Southern Cone, held modest sway during the early twentieth century among the conservative elite but never effectively spread to the nation as a whole. It mixed and transformed with other ideologies and questions that existed at the time. It modestly influenced those in power, but in the end, Argentine leaders and average people alike set their own course. They used any form of political discourse that could help them achieve their unique political needs. Their melding of political developments to address Argentine problems continued to heavily influence Argentine politics throughout the second half of the twentieth century but left fascism itself behind in favor of new political and economic models.