You don’t use any definition at all. You seem to just call whatever you think is good, “socialist.”
There’s no point in carrying on a discussion when you’re unwilling to understand what I am saying, or when you are going to misrepresent my view in this way.
I gave a definition of Socialism — government intervention in the economy with the aim of redistribution and promoting economic equality — which is in common use, and in particular describes the platforms of the various “Socialist” parties of the world much more closely than your extreme totalitarian definition. Furthermore, I think I made it very clear that (a) the USSR was clearly a very Socialist economy, and (b) I consider their policy to be a barbaric failure. In fact, I am not terribly sympathetic to most modern “Socialist” parties either (though mostly for their promotion of internationalism).
As I replied to Kady (and you too), I recognize your formulation as a valid definition, if a bit dated in my opinion. In particular, it is the historical definition. It is your insistence on this as the One and Only Meaning, in the face of the actual platforms of actual Socialist parties, that rankles.
[As for your assessment of the inevitable failure of Germany, I think you’re letting your ideological stance cloud your judgment. It was incredibly close. Here’s an example of a single decision that could have made a huge difference: one of Hitler’s allies was Finland under Mannerheim, but Mannerheim was wary of Hitler and refused to allow the Finnish army to fully participate in the Siege of Leningrad.]