Yet they doubt that this way of classifying regimes is necessarily useful. In this case, the use of the common label may well hinder historical understanding. For instance, the regimes of Mussolini and of Hitler can be classified as fascist. Yet if the driving force in Germany was a determination to liquidate the 'lesser races' in order to create a racial rather than a class society, then the common ground with Italy may be historically unimportant. The Holocaust may render generic fascism startlingly irrelevant.
Political historians tend to insist that the ideological approach to fascism is inadequate.
From their perspective, ideas are important in so far as they influence actions. Thus they view generic fascism from the perspective of what happened, identifying common fascist strands in different countries and classifying regimes as fascist overall if such similarities outweigh the differences. Nevertheless, the essential point is that we must look at actions and achievements, as well as ideas and assumptions. A Style of Rule and Totalitarianism Others see the link between fascist regimes not in ideas or actions but in the 'style' that the dictators adopted to impress and indoctrinate the masses. From this perspective, fascism is a matter of mass rallies, militaristic parades, political symbols, the cult of the leader, various forms of 'fancy dress', and of extensive control of the mass media.