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.
Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!
My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/
My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.