And who controlled the means of production? The Nazis.
To do this, organized labor, and the actual socialists and communists had to be removed from the scene.
Leave labels aside for a moment. Rephrase it as "competitors to the party had to be removed from the scene." It's no different than the Soviets.
Once Hitler gained power, legally I might add, and with the financial backing of the German elite,(which you should know if you read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and understood it), those owners retained their ownership
How does that not make the Nazis socialist? What's the difference between co-opting a business owner to do your bidding or replacing him with a "worker's council?" It's the same result. The former's more practical and effective. Your positions seems to be that it would be a violation of socialist principals. I view it as adaptation. The ruling party can still be called a socialist.
And Hitler certainly did nationalize (using the most basic definition of the word) several industries.
Any owner in the United States that turned disloyal would have lost his ownership, .
Actually, what would have and did happen -- I'm assuming by disloyal you simply mean ignore government directives -- would be that the government would, temporarily, take over the facilities. No ownership would be lost. No concentration camp sentence would be levied.
As to your logic, I don't find any.
Well, I'm not surprised.
You seem to be stuck reasoning that because two different types of nation states are both powerful, they must be the same.
Of course not. The United States is powerful. We're neither like Nazi Germany nor the Soviet Union.
You ignore that they engage in entirely different nation building and social engineering--one nationalizing all land and factories and inculcating into its' citizens the world view that all are equal and that nation states and governments will ultimately dissolve,
Are you really a conservative? Anyway, it's occasionally interesting to consider the differences but far more useful to note the similarities -- namely that the ideologies of both nations held that the rights of the state/collective/party outweighed the rights of the individual -- including the right to his property.
Others in this thread have basically agreed at this point and have just worked out fine details, but you are a stubborn one Tribune.
I think most of the posters are agreeing with me. :-)
Why do you suppose Hitler put 90% of his armies on the Eastern Front and only 10% on the Western?
Because that's were 90 percent of the fighting was going on. The Russian front lasted from 1940 to 1945. The Western Front basically lasted for 11 months starting in June 1944.
Could it have been that the ruling class of Germany thought that Britain and the United States would ultimately see the wisdom of joining Germany in fighting communism, all three countries at that time practicing some brand of fascism, the latter two admittedly very mild.
The US, facist? You are not only not a conservative (or classic liberal if you will), you are getting silly. Ponder this -- why was Hitler's first ally the Soviet Union?