I would point out that they weren't. With the exception of those parties which clearly appeared as imitations of the German National Socialists, and are therefore at times referenced for sake of simplicity as "that country's nazis" despite having a proper denomination of their own; something that people do anyways for many collaborationist forces or axis' allies (for instance the Hungarian Arrow Cross Party-Hungarist Movement, or the Romanian Iron Guard and National-Legionary State).

Of course, Fascism itself (that is, Italian Fascism) does not fit since its original denomination was more or less "movement of the Fasci di Combattimento" - that is "of the combatants", being a reference to the "veteranism" of the new organization, and to its supposed incarnation of the true, active forces of the nation, producers and combatants.

Many movements developing during those years added the experience of the war to an already existing platform of "national-radicalism", creating a sort of paradigm of national revolution/restoration, where the revolutionary purpose was the reestablishment of the original, true, values of the nation/people/race. As such, they gave a prominent attention to "national" themes - similarly, given the prominently "anti-national" character of the Bolshevik movement, despite revolutionary themes being somewhat of an attraction for small fractions of the "radical" galaxy, those movements tended to assume Bolshevism as a symbol of "denial of the nation/people/race" and therefore as a fundamental antithesis to their own professed identity.

"Left wing ideologies" - ranging from Lenin to Wilson - would often end up in the pile of the "anti national" stuff, and therefore rejected more or less vehemently.

For reference, Paxton, R. The Anatomy of Fascism - Payne, S.G. Fascism