Read more carefully.  "There's no reason to doubt he would have followed thru on some kind of socialism given he followed thru on his rhetoric about jews."  This implies to me that he had not yet "followed thru on some kind of socialism" by the time of his downfall, because, if he had, then "would have" (hypothetical scenario) would make no sense to talk about if he had already DONE IT.  What I said was, essentially, that if there's something the Nazis held as a core ideal, they definitely would have done something about it in the over a decade that they had control of the country—whether that's socialism or getting rid of Jews. 

the fact of the matter is that his policies were socialist from the very beginning, regardless of the original poster's thoughts on the matter

A brief read of Wikipeda suggests that their economic policy was highly nationalistic, but usually opposed to left-wing policies.  I mean, if you define "socialist policy" as "the policy of increasing the national authority to dictate economic activity, while still leaving it to private entities that play along with national goals," and if you say socialism has nothing to do with workforce collective bargaining etc., then I think we just plain disagree on the definition.  Now, of course I recognize that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, but please tell me what of the following quotes you believe is incorrect or misleading, especially but not limited to the bolded: 

"In spite of their rhetoric condemning big business prior to their rise to power, the Nazis quickly entered into a partnership with German business from as early as February 1933. That month, after being appointed Chancellor but before gaining dictatorial powers, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy" and because democracy would allegedly lead to communism.[50] He promised to destroy the German left and the trade unions, without any mention of anti-Jewish policies or foreign conquests.[218] In the following weeks, the Nazi Party received contributions from seventeen different business groups, with the largest coming from IG Farben and Deutsche Bank.[218] Historian Adam Tooze writes that the leaders of German business were therefore "willing partners in the destruction of political pluralism in Germany."[48] In exchange, owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level.[219] Business profits also rose very rapidly, as did corporate investment.[220] In addition, the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, but at the same time they increased economic state control through regulations.[221] Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".[222] Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership, with high profits as a reward for firms who followed them and the threat of nationalization being used against those who did not.[223] Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished, but Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him retain business competition and private property as economic engines.[224][225]"

I gathered from the article that the Nazi Party might perhaps have been founded with socialist ideals, but that they took a hard right turn before they gained power, allying with reactionary groups etc.  One striking example of this argument can be found in the person of Otto Strasser, a left-leaning Nazi who was party leader until 1926 when Hitler won the leadership from him.  By 1930 he was kicked out of the party.  From Wikipedia:  "The Nazi Left itself was annihilated during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 – in which his brother was killed"

you know one thing i have to say is that i'm getting increasingly sick and tired of leftist dishonesty or maybe ignorance when it comes to these issues

but i digress

"while still leaving it to private entities that play along with national goals"

what does this mean? is this not tip toeing around the fact that the government controlled the businesses? to repeat for possibly the thousandth time government control over business is the central philosophy of socialism

" but usually opposed to left-wing policies"

you mean outside of their social and economic policies? and i mean what else is left to define political stance outside of social and economic policies?

" the Nazis quickly entered into a partnership with German business from as early as February 1933. That month, after being appointed Chancellor but before gaining dictatorial powers, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy""

"but at the same time they increased economic state control through regulations.["

"rivate property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership"

did you read this at all? what do you think is being said here?

everything i just quoted is socialist policy

are truly trying to argue that state economic control, revoking of property rights, suppression of businesses not beneficial to the ruling regime etc etc etc are capitalist policies?

A brief read of Wikipeda suggests that their economic policy was highly nationalistic, but usually opposed to left-wing policies.  I mean, if you define "socialist policy" as "the policy of increasing the national authority to dictate economic activity, while still leaving it to private entities that play along with national goals," and if you say socialism has nothing to do with workforce collective bargaining etc., then I think we just plain disagree on the definition.  Now, of course I recognize that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, but please tell me what of the following quotes you believe is incorrect or misleading, especially but not limited to the bolded: 

"In spite of their rhetoric condemning big business prior to their rise to power, the Nazis quickly entered into a partnership with German business from as early as February 1933. That month, after being appointed Chancellor but before gaining dictatorial powers, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy" and because democracy would allegedly lead to communism.[50] He promised to destroy the German left and the trade unions, without any mention of anti-Jewish policies or foreign conquests.[218] In the following weeks, the Nazi Party received contributions from seventeen different business groups, with the largest coming from IG Farben and Deutsche Bank.[218] Historian Adam Tooze writes that the leaders of German business were therefore "willing partners in the destruction of political pluralism in Germany."[48] In exchange, owners and managers of German businesses were granted unprecedented powers to control their workforce, collective bargaining was abolished and wages were frozen at a relatively low level.[219] Business profits also rose very rapidly, as did corporate investment.[220] In addition, the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, but at the same time they increased economic state control through regulations.[221] Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".[222] Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership, with high profits as a reward for firms who followed them and the threat of nationalization being used against those who did not.[223] Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished, but Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him retain business competition and private property as economic engines.[224][225]"

I gathered from the article that the Nazi Party might perhaps have been founded with socialist ideals, but that they took a hard right turn before they gained power, allying with reactionary groups etc.  One striking example of this argument can be found in the person of Otto Strasser, a left-leaning Nazi who was party leader until 1926 when Hitler won the leadership from him.  By 1930 he was kicked out of the party.  From Wikipedia:  "The Nazi Left itself was annihilated during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 – in which his brother was killed"

you know one thing i have to say is that i'm getting increasingly sick and tired of leftist dishonesty or maybe ignorance when it comes to these issues

but i digress

"while still leaving it to private entities that play along with national goals"

what does this mean? is this not tip toeing around the fact that the government controlled the businesses? to repeat for possibly the thousandth time government control over business is the central philosophy of socialism

" but usually opposed to left-wing policies"

you mean outside of their social and economic policies? and i mean what else is left to define political stance outside of social and economic policies?

" the Nazis quickly entered into a partnership with German business from as early as February 1933. That month, after being appointed Chancellor but before gaining dictatorial powers, Hitler made a personal appeal to German business leaders to help fund the Nazi Party for the crucial months that were to follow. He argued that they should support him in establishing a dictatorship because "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy""

"but at the same time they increased economic state control through regulations.["

"rivate property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership"

did you read this at all? what do you think is being said here?

everything i just quoted is socialist policy

are truly trying to argue that state economic control, revoking of property rights, suppression of businesses not beneficial to the ruling regime etc etc etc are capitalist policies?

Gets tired of leftist dishonesty

"Nazis were socialist, see!"

Get out!

You barely even touched on what I bolded.  Please address everything I bolded:  do you agree or disagree about what is being factually said, or do you disavow knowledge on the specific topics?  In other words, do you dispute the factual claims Wikipedia is making in the bolded text? 

No, I disagree that "democracy is antithetical to private enterprise" is socialist anything, let alone socialist policy. 

No, I disagree with your single-minded focus on government control as the sole indicator of what is and isn't socialist.  I'd like you do clearly define what socialism is in your mind, without oversimplifying because I want to be able to respond to what you say without it being dismissed as "not what you meant".  I recognize that socialism might be a broad topic so some generalizations might be necessary.  I just don't want you to misrepresent your position to me. 

No, I disagree with your implied dichotomy that everything is a binary "capitalist" or "socialist" position.  "They did this which isn't very capitalist of them, therefore they must be socialist" is a garbage argument. 

well seeing as how i can actually back up my claim with evidence and logic and all you can do is dismiss it because it presumably does not align with your silly confirmation bias i think i'm doing pretty good

so far the only evidence provided to show the nazis were not socialist was i shit you not - they were fans of henry ford, they killed socialists, they privitised certain utilities(which is a fucking lie since as i have had to repeat constantly they controlled these businesses)

and that's ignoring all of the actual socialist policies they pushed - state funded health care, education, child care, state control of business etc etc etc

"No, I disagree that "democracy is antithetical to private enterprise""

well it must be fantastic then that i never brought up democracy because democracy is not the same as socialism

socialism can be brought about through democracy* or through a minority exerting force over a majority

"No, I disagree with your single-minded focus on government control as the sole indicator of what is and isn't socialist. "

well then you do not understand what socialism is and that's a fact... socialism is defined as

"socialism. noun. an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state."

and if you do not understand what something is then you probably shouldn't be discussing it until you sort that shit out