So, does it make me wrong of what I have posted?

Should I post ISBN numbers and book pages instead? Wikipedia lists their sources as references. Everyone is free to verify them. 

Alt-right and liberalism historical revisionism, maybe? Oversimplification of a complex science politcs idea: left  to right panorama's schematics. 

They are ideologically mutually exclusive. Their ideas on statehood, personhood and even the economy are radically different. Idealistic Socialism argues for a fully cooperative economy (no state, no corporations), while Marxism-Leninism opted for a fully state driven economy.

The economy in Nazi Germany has more in common with a State Capitalistic society. Technically a free market, but with heavy state involvement in strategic sectors by means of working closely together with a few corporations in said sector.

I mean, the complete counterfactual reasoning that fascism and socialism are ideologically related would eventually mean you could lump capitalism and liberalism in there as well. That's just rediculous.

Anyone who seriously thinks that Hitler was a socialist has a very warped understanding of what socialism is. Left is not merely statist, and statism is not merely socialism. On the contrary, statism has more to do with the right - even though it is true that left socialist states of the 20th century were very statist. Hitler did things that could be seen as adhering to a form of socialism, but these things were not uniquely socialist (creating jobs, appealing to workers, and strengthening industry were not exclusively left-wing ideals but part of a general rubric of progressive and industrialising tendency that had affected many states regardless of orientation).

And he certainly, CERTAINLY, wasn't a liberal. Come on. Do we even know what liberalism stands for before saying such ridiculous things? Liberalism advocates the maximisation of individual liberty. Hitler espoused a far more unified, collective (hence the "socialist" inspiration) state, where the people proceed as one: one voice, one Fuhrer, one party. There is literally nothing more oxymoronic than calling Hitler a liberal. 

That sounds a lot like the United States. The republicans prefer to refer to it as capitalism though.

Could you elaborate your reasoning? I'm very curious to see what made you say this.

Except he didn't control the companies.

"Idealistic Socialism argues for a fully cooperative economy (no state, no corporations), while Marxism-Leninism opted for a fully state driven economy."

can you explain to me rationally how a society can be run without some type of centralised(state) control?

i'm pretty sure that you can't... how then does socialism devolve power from individuals to the "community"?

"The economy in Nazi Germany has more in common with a State Capitalistic society. Technically a free market"

this is a lie, the businesses in germany were controlled by the state

the businesses did not have freedom with respect to how they were run since the state controlled that

"I mean, the complete counterfactual reasoning that fascism and socialism are ideologically related"

ideal socialism is a fairy tale... i'm talking about what happpes when people try to put these ideas into practice

"would eventually mean you could lump capitalism and liberalism in there as well."

how so?

...but he did

" German business increasingly turned to Nazism as offering a way out of the situation, by promising a state-driven economy that would support, rather than attack, existing business interests.[35] By January 1933, the Nazi Party had secured the support of important sectors of German industry, mainly among the steel and coal producers, the insurance business and the chemical industry.[36]

Large segments of the Nazi Party, particularly among the members of the Sturmabteilung (SA), were committed to the party's official socialist, revolutionary and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and an economic revolution when the party gained power in 1933."

" Hitler actively sought to gain the support of business leaders by arguing that private enterprise is incompatible with democracy."

 "In addition, the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, but at the same time they increased economic state control through regulations."

The Nazis referred to themselves as 'national socialists' but that ends up being a very different concept from socialism despite the similarities in name, mainly as the former is all about elevating one group above others and the latter is about treating all groups equally.

In terms of government actions, they again get conflated as socialism is usually used as a synonym for communism, and liken to the USSR. Both far right and far left governments seek to set up a totalitarian state, which is where you get the horse-shoe theory from.