You're either mixing up the Nazi regime with the Weimar Republic, or you were lied to.

The Nazis heavily privatized all things in industry, business, insurances to levels beyond any current Western nation. Only when it was absolutely necessary to do so for war efforts did the state take control.

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

"Only when it waas absolutely necessary to do so for war efforts did the state take control."

its telling to me that everyone who pushes this narrative uses the exact same article each time, but regardless from your article:

the author is calling branches of government "private entities" here:

"Besides the transfer to the private sector of public ownership in firms, the Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose"

i am calling the nazi party government/state btw in case that wasn't obvious and i don't see how you could consider them anything else in this context

regardless this alone should raise the eyebrow of anyone thinking about this rationally

"On one hand, the intense growth of governmental regulations on markets, which heavily restricted economic freedom, suggests that the rights inherent to private property were destroyed."

the author admits here that the nazis destroyed private property rights... because again as anyone thinking about this rationally understands a business can't be private while being controlled by the state to the extent that they were in nazi germany

“the State in fact divested itself of a great deal of its previous direct participation in industry….But at the same time state control, regulation and interference in the conduct of the economy affairs was enormously extended.”

that there is so much double talk when it comes to this topic should lead people to question things more but alas it does not unfortunately

if this isn't a damning comment i don't know what is

" “I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State….The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.”"

that is socialism in a nutshell if you cannot understand that then there really is no helping you

Some people think that if you call something "private property," it is. They don't understand that -- for private property to actually exist (and thus some form of "capitalism") -- private property rights must actually be respected by the government.

Suffice it to say, the Nazi government -- a dictatorial, authoritarian, totalitarian government -- did not respect private property rights. Hitler did not respect individual rights. He did not believe in liberal values, such as individualism or liberty.

Whether you label such an approach as being fundamentally "socialist" or "fascist" is interesting in an academic sense, perhaps, but it does nothing to challenge the central character. All governments that disdain individual rights, whether we think of them as being "left" or "right" are ultimately destructive.

Your fake definition is incorrect.  Socialism is:

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Its about a community working for itself.  Not about attacking the 'rich' but I get it:  anything that benefits people is an 'attack on the rich'.

Wrong.

Real socialism is a form of government where the people crowdfund what they want.  And they all pay into that. 

not this fear everything theory you have 'duh the are coming for my riches!  Help!'.  If you keep lying to yourself, you are bound to become the source of the fear that keeps you in place. 

Medicate is socialism.  Social Security is socialism.  These are programs that benefit the public.  We can discuss the programs merit separately, but if you don't understand on the most basic level what socialism is, I suggest you get you reclaim you thoughts from whatever thinktank has you repeating their lies. 

"who owned and controlled the "privatized" businesses in germany?"

The companies and their owners did. Who also got the profit. The tax rates in Nazi Germany was very low compared to other western nations at the time.

it would be if the state did not control the businesses... but the historical fact remains that they did

Well in theory all governments have control over the countries businesses, even in the US. The question is if they use that control or not, which NSDAP did not. They largely allowed the companies to run their own businesses, they respected the companies and the owners the right to their own property, except if they were jewish. 

You're the most right person in this thread. Except me, of course. But you're very close.

Everyone just wants to assign him to their enemy so they can say "We can't follow (insert), he's just like Hitler! The next Hitler won't be Hitler, anyway, he'll be something else entirely. You don't have to believe in the master Aryan race to kill a crap load of people and try and take over the world.

I think it's a manipulation and an obvious attempt to brainwash people, when as the basis of proving that National Socialists weren't socialist one "tackles" someone like Crowder. Why not take on the Nobel Prize winner prof. Friedrich von Hayek and his "Road to Serfdom"? A book considered to be among the absolute top most important non-fiction books of the 20th century, in which he bluntly explains why neither Communism, Fascism nor National Socialism have anything to do with the right side of the political spectrum and all share a common socialist root. I guess the left prefers to be hush-hush on this issue and not tackle something they know they can't hope to win against.

In fact, even in the response video (which makes some absolutely ridiculous statesments, btw.) in the OP at 36:41 to 37:37 we can see a quote that to me shows Hitler was a socialist. The problem of this nomenclature, though, is that to a modern left-wing person, one can be called a socialist only when he's Trocki or to the left of him. Everyone to the right of Trocki isn't a socialist, or a "real socialist" ("No true Scotsman", anyone?). So since even Stalin, Lenin, Xi, Mao or Pol Pot aren't "real socialists", thus aren't socialists at all, it's no wonder they reject Hitler as a socialist as well. On the other hand, people on the right see that what Hitler did doesn't really differ from what Stalin, Lenin and the rest of the bunch did and this is where they draw the line. Not what you claim to be doing, but what you are effectively doing.

I for one see no difference between Stalin having nationalized companies and telling them what to do and Hitler keeping the companies private, but relegating a party member to supervise and tell the owner what to do or pack his bags and go to a concentration camp. To me both models fall within socialism, but for left-wing people (like the author of that video) aparently there is a major difference here somewhere that justifies pushing National Socialism to the other side of the spectrum.
Stealing a company by nationalization vs taking money by privatization with keeping a man with a gun to the new owner's head makes for left and right wing? Lol. Laughable, but whatever.

I personally stick to Hayek. Being one of the smartest men of the 20th century on top of personally witnessing the birth of National Socialism makes you qualified to judge it.
Also, I think that putting Fascism next to Communism or National Socialism is simply wrong. Fascism wasn't anywhere near as bad as these two sick ideologies. In fact, I think it's the "least bad" out of all totalitarian or authoritarian regimes ever. The only reason it's been demonized and is commonly referred to as the ultimate evil is that Fascists defeated Communists in a number of countries and Communist propaganda is brainwashing us as part of their vengeance on Fascists. Comparing the number of victims of Fascism (less than 0.5% of the victims of Communism) or the social and economic impact both ideologies have on their countries (impressive economic growth in Spain and Portugal, or Chile being the wealthiest Latin American country to this day), fascism was innocent, almost ok.
While I'm high on Hayek's ilk and personal freedom, if you asked me to pick between living in a country run by one the three ideologies, I wouldn't hesitate one bit.

Hitler was a good man. His hard work will be missed.

Reinstating permanent ban -Raven

There is a lot of difference between the "far right" and Hitler. Let me know when the far right wants to confiscate all the guns.

Does anyone on the "right" even consider them the "far/alt right"? Just wondering what gives them that label.

Right.

The push towards one simple answer for all kinds of problems is far-right? Hmm... How did it go? "The solution to all the problems of the European Union is more European Union" - I guess EU is a far-right organization Or maybe that's just a regular tool in politics used everywhere and your "logical analysis of history" and "underlying principle" claim is a load of crap? Naaahh... That'd be too easy...

UK will benefit from Brexit in the long term, I have no doubt about that and I envy them for it.

Also, nationalism isn't right wing. There was national bolshevism, the regime of Chavez and Maduro were also very nationalistic, yet I doubt anyone is going to call them far-right

Hitler wasn't right wing. Sorry. Socialism is cancer - in any way, shape or form.