I consider a bunch of the democracies in Europe to be social democracies with mixed economies.

I consider the USSR to be socialist - at least up until late in its life. It was a centrally planned economy with huge amounts of state ownership, it wasn't absolutley purely socialist but it was as far to that end of the spectrum as I know of in any significant country. Socialism requires public ownership - depending on how you view it this could be centrally controlled (ie by the state) or communually. USSR fits the first definition.

The Nazi's never implemented anything really resembly socialism, their economy was far closer to being Keynesian than socialist. However as I have said before their economic model was never really defined - Hitler often said that the economy was something of little importance as far as he was concerned.

You keep saying their economic model wasn't well defined... but it was.  Because they were in charge...  with ultimate authority.

To see there economic policy all you need to do is look at how they ran things.

It started off very kensiyan.  Then they went authoritarian doing what was best with the state with the rational that was also best for the people.

Just as you consider Europeon Democracies, Socialized Democracies... in many ways Nazi Germany was a Socialized Dictatorship.

State planning of buisness actually became the norm for Nazi Germany towards the middle of their rule all the way towards the end.  They gave the buisness owners imput but the final decisions about what buisnesses did were government run.  Much like the USSR.

Fascists tended to view their economics as a third way, not capitalism or socialism, fascist economies were corporatist, organizing the different groups into bodies which would work together, and believed that social class divisions and inequality were beneficial, very different than the ideas of socialism. Fascism allowed private property, but guided towards the will of the state, they were opposed to labor unions and supportive of a kind of social Darwinism. They also tended to follow the idea of spreading losses across the populace, while keeping profits private, and also tended to oppose international trade and sought economic self sufficiency.

So not socialist or capitalist really.

Fascists tended to view their economics as a third way, not capitalism or socialism, fascist economies were corporatist, organizing the different groups into bodies which would work together, and believed that social class divisions and inequality were beneficial, very different than the ideas of socialism. Fascism allowed private property, but guided towards the will of the state, they were opposed to labor unions and supportive of a kind of social Darwinism. They also tended to follow the idea of spreading losses across the populace, while keeping profits private, and also tended to oppose international trade and sought economic self sufficiency.

So not socialist or capitalist really.

Shoot I'd buy it, if only to see how he thought...it'd be interesting!

So Indians are Nazi's now, huh?

I know they were in charge but that doesn't meant that in the reasonably short time they were in power they implemented a consistent and well defined economic plan.

It essentially started off Keynesian with large projects like the autobahns (not conceived by them, but pushed by them) and then went to military Keynesianism. Like in every nation during that war the government ended up spending large amounts of money on the military, however they never truly seized control of their economy in the way you make out.

No... they actually did do at as I stated.

You just need to read some of the many books written on the Nazi economy to understand that.

They not only controlled what buisnesses did but even what the workers did.  Even as far as their free time.

The German economy was a lot like the Chinese economy is currently... though a little more planned.

Do you not consider the chinese socialist?  Because the German government was much more centrally planned then the Chinese economy is.