This exercise is necessarily subjective because there is no such thing as a set traditional political spectrum. Different countries have different political spectrums, and even then, the spectrum is largely in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, each of the ideologies you list above exist both in the world of politics and in the philosophical realm. Are we talking about Marx's socialism or Lenin's socialism? Are we talking about the capitalism of Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes? In other words, there is a great deal of complexity in this undertaking, but as long as one recognizes the complexities, and perhaps its inherent limitations, one may go about trying to tackle this task on the basis of some objective criteria.
Start by identifying those criteria. If there is to be a spectrum, what will that spectrum be based on? If we go with the "traditional" idea in American politics of a liberal pole at one end and a conservative pole at the other end, we will be immediately faced with some challenges. Anarchism will not readily fit anywhere on that spectrum because anarchism assumes no formal government.
If, however, we base our spectrum of the degree of governmental control, anarchism can be conveniently placed at one pole. We one uses the degree of government control as a criterion, we could move from anarchy (no control) to communism (which according to Marx has no government, because the bourgeois state has withered away) to socialism (which in principle, according to Marx, has a free proletarian state) to capitalism (which has a wealthy elite but might be accompanied by republicanism and a system of liberal democracy) to fascism (which has a military ordering of society). This ordering is based on the types of government in principle.
If one looks at World War II realities, Soviet socialism (not communism, because communism had not yet been achieved even according to Leninists and Stalinists) might be on par with fascism in terms of its level of social control and aspirations for total control. See the link below on totalitarianism from Hannah Arendt. That would change our spectrum from anarchy to capitalism to socialism/communism/fascism. Where would World War II leaders find themselves? They would probably go along with the political ideology of their state. Western liberal democracies would be associated with the capitalist category. Where would we place the individual leaders within certain countries, like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie or Winston Churchill and Clement Attlee? They might be associated with their political parties, but again, one runs into a degree of complexity. For example, who exerted more social control: the Republicans or the Democrats? Depending on one's perspective, an argument might be made in either direction. What do you do with someone like Willkie, who was an unconventional Republican during World War II?
The bottom line is that one has to develop objective criteria and rules of the game to generate such a spectrum, but it can be done!