National socialists believe in the existence of distinct nations. The internationalists did not, preferring a global socialist system. The German Nazis maintained the nominal pretense of private property, albeit under total government control. The international communists preferred total government control of all property. While it is not much of a distinction, it is a difference.
Nazis also stated that they believed in private property and private business while communists belived in common ownership of the means of production. In practice the government completely controlled both. Again it is stated difference that never existed in reality.
When the stated differences never actually existed except in arguements between dedicated ideologues can you really call them differences never mind distinctions?
Not exactly. National Socialists (Nazis) sometimes absorbed the nations they conquered (e.g., Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland) directly into the Reich so they were ruled by Germans. However, there were some satellites (e.g., Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Vichy France) that were ruled by locals subserviant to their German overlords.
Communists (Marxists) may have have been "internationalists" at first but then developed the super nation-state of the Soviet Union by absorbing quite a number of smaller nations into Russia. The Eastern European satellite communist nations were governed by local communists who maintained their national identity, but were succeptable to Soviet military invasion when local communist hegemony was threatened (e.g., Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in the "Prague Spring", 1968).