Actually, Hitler’s economic ideas were never that firm, and they changed with the times whenever he felt necessary to increase his chances to obtain power.
In his earliest views, which were probably his most authentic, he was clearly socialistic. Hitler was the one to convince the party to include the word “socialist” in the name, and at that time the party platform called for things like income redistribution, nationalization of major industries, free education, higher government-paid pensions, etc. In those days Hitler followed much of the economic thinking of his early advisor Gottfried Feder who railed against “international capitalism” and “interest slavery.”
Hitler hated American-style free enterprise and democratic institutions as much as he hated Marxism. His opposition to Marxism was founded in his opposition to its internationalism and Jewish roots more than anything else, as he was certainly not in principle opposed to dictatorship, totalitarianism or government control over industry.
But Hitler was never strongly attached to socialist economic philosophies, and once it became clear that some of the leading German industrialists from Bavaria and the Rurhgebiet (Fritz Thyssen, etc.) were attracted to his anti-Marxist message and would contribute large sums to the NSDAP and help him to power, Hitler discarded strong economic socialist proposals and the economic socialists in the party were pushed down. I think Hitler was simply not that interested in economic philosophies, and was of the view that once racially pure Germans were in charge of everything, whatever economic structure would make the most sense would be decided as things went on in top-down decisions by the Leader and his advisors.
Same with Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy), which put in place some market-based reforms in the Soviet Union.
And Arthur Jensen put it best in the movie "Network":
"What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do."
I think you're right. What most posters to this thread have failed to distinguish is that Communist USSR, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were all totalitarian. Top-down iron-fisted control was what they shared in common, not economic views.
Natural Law, as recognized in the U.S. Constitution, was abolished in favor of central planning and secular human control. That still holds true today in the EU, other socialist and Communist nations around the world, and with the American Left.
The totalitarian threat as described by George Orwell is still very much with us although the EU welfare states have substituted a committee of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels instead of one-man dictatorship. The U.S. is inching more and more in the same direction but with international corporations vying with bureaucrats for the "ruler" role.
The "man-as-God" idea of eugenics and elimination of "undesirables" fostered by such as American Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood's founder) inspired Hitler's appeal to pagan Germanic Aryan roots and "racial purity." Hatred of Jews was deeply embodied in the German (not to mention Western European) character. Combined with the economic misery brought on Germany by World War I, it rallied the masses behind Hitler in his drive for absolute power.
Whether Nazism was "socialist" or not begs the issue. The real danger to the world, then and now, is totalitarianism. It wears many costumes and tells politically palatable lies, promising Utopia for the downtrodden while passing favors to powerful elites. Does that remind anyone of any current American politicians?