According to A history of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945. 2nd edition by Joseph Bendersky, Nazism was established on the accusation that both capitalism and communism were geared towards Jewish interests. Therefore, the Third Position was established with a Notionalist view in mind, the abolition of the Jews and the establishment of an Aryan master race. The economic views may have been more socialist, but the primary agenda of Fascism and Nazism was Nationalism interests, viewed as a far-right agenda.

"Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies, though a majority of scholars hold it to be a far right form of politics"

(cited in Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; Eatwell, Roger, Fascism, A History, Viking/Penguin, 1996, pp. xvii-xxiv, 21, 26–31, 114–140, 352. Griffin, Roger. 2000. "Revolution from the Right: Fascism," chapter in David Parker (ed.) Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991, Routledge, London.)

HappySqurriel, it's more like religious, Neo-Con right wing. Than basic right wing.

So, while there economic policy is predominantly based in socialism, and their social policies of the day were based in social-Darwinism and eugenics which was dominant in the ideology of the extreme left of the day, because they demonstrated extreme nationalism they are extremely right wing?

Isn't this kind of like arguing that Iran is an extremely progressive nation because the government pays for sex changes? Ignore the murdering of homosexuals, and the complete lack of rights for women, they share one policy with the left therefore they're extremely left wing.

In addition to what fordy responded, i would like to add that you're getting terminologies mixed up. Think of political compass, as they represent it well

Fascism is related to Communism, but only in the same way that Anarchism is related to Objectivism. Gandhi and Ayn Rand would agree on some things regarding the size of government, but would otherwise have near-total disagreement on economics and the actual roles people should have. Similarly Hitler and Stalin can (and did) trade notes on a number of things, but ultimately had a very different vision for the final world

Across the spectrum of Authoritarianism or Libertarianism (from Communism to Fascism or Anarchism to Objectivism) you see groups who agree in the means but not in the ends, whereas with Communists and Anarchists or Fascists and Objectivists you see groups that loosely agree on the ends but not on the means

Not at all. In fact, the right 's agenda is driven by classification of the people, whereas a left policiy works towards equality of the people. However, think about this: a far-right capitalist state gives power to the corporate entities, which in turn leads to monopolisation. Nazi Germany did have corporate socialisation, but they still had classification according to wealth too. Left policies deal with the abolition of all classes.

You even stated that they worked towards the establishment of a healthy MIDDLE CLASS. There were still ones with higher capital, some you probably heard of (Oskar Schindler?).

I have to admit that the American right-wing have done a brilliant job in instilling particular myths into the community, that Liberal is a bad word, that Liberal = socialist, that right-wing means no government and left-wing means total government. In fact, the whole right/wing policy came from France I believe, where the left side of the town hall was for the revolutionaries (less government), and the right side were for the monarchists (more government).

I wouldn't call it so much a matter of myths vs facts but rather differnt versions of the concepts.   Your above definitions would be classical.   Those seen in America today could be more defined as modern  American left and right wing.

The definitions in America itself have changed quite greatly over the past 100 years.

I will grant that it is cause for much confusion but it's far easier to alter the basic principles in an already established party and change the political idoelogy over time  than to create a whole new party or openly change the ideology by name.

And for the record, the left has done an equally good job of making conservative or right wing a bad word.

not sure if the bolded is serious or not, but if so, in reality its the exact opposite. left is always catagorizing people, just look at universities. the black student center, womens center, gay/lesbian center,  "insert name of 'minority'"center. then we have affirmative action, scholarship specifically targeting certian races or genders. title IX constantly pointing out how people are different. while typically the right wants every one to be treated equally, no special priveledges.

for the italicized, that corpratism not capitalism, something both parties have unfortunately been practicing from some years now

Your argument fails on the basis that if those centres were abolished, you believe there would be equal treatment. However, wealth classification will always mean that ones growing up in a rich family will always have a leg-up. If you believe in equality, tell me, do you support a 100% death tax? (that is, all accumulated wealth in one's life can not be inherited). 

This is the basis of capitalism. It's based on greed. Wealth can be obtained in two ways, by making more than others, or forcing others to make less. the American right-wing uses both of these methodsto ensure the wealthy stay wealthy and thus have the control.

i believe people can do with their own property what ever they please, if that means giving their money to their heirs then so be it.

for the second part, you do realize wallstreet gave more to obama than Mccain, right?

and for the bolded, the former way is capitalism, the latter way is socialism.