Mr. Black, Congratulations on being the only person to disagree with me without vitriol. But your thesis is ahistorical and untenable.
Like Neville Chamberlain and Stalin, you trust Hitler to exercise truth in labeling. Do you consider Sweden's xenophobic Liberal Democrats to be liberal and democratic? Are Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democrats in Russia liberal and democratic? Hitler used the socialist label to recruit to the SA.
Ford, Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben and Harvard grad Putzi Haenfstengl's aristocratic friends financed Hitler against socialism and communism. After he became chancellor they got their return on investment. He crushed the socialists and communists and their unions. Read Who Financed Hitler by James and Suzanne Pool.
Once in power, Hitler aligned the Nazis to German big business and crushed their pseudo-socialist faction--the SA--on June 30, 1934. Then on June 22, 1941 Hitler invaded the USSR to crush Bolshevism, a geopolitically and militarily insane decision, considering that Stalin had fulfilled to the letter all the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Hitler invaded to seize what he had been buying since 1939.
Both regimes were totalitarian monsters. But turn to Primo Levi, the Italian-Jewish survivor of Auschwitz liberated by the Red Army on January 27, 1945, along with my late friend, Otto Klein, a twin who knew Dr Mengele personally to see the difference: it is unimaginable that liberal democracy could have defeated these monsters with the sequence reversed: communism first. Communism died mostly peacefully. Nazism dying peacefully was inconceivable. Why? Levi said there is no theory of Nazism apart from its genocidal practice. But there is a theory of communism apart from its Stalinist practice.
Both Nazism and Bolshevism practiced bait and switch with their working class followers. Lenin and Trotsky did the same with socialism and the "workers' state" and massacred 10000 sailors at Kronstadt in 1921. The Russian anarchists (libertarian socialists) Bakunin and Kropotkin warned Marx that his "dictatorship of the proletariat" would lead to this outcome. Unlimited state power always does. Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, will take you on a world tour of how difficult it is for human societies to find the sweet spot between too little rules-based state power that leads to chaos and too much extractive rulers above the rules state power that leads to kleptocracy and squashes initiative. The Roman and Venetian republics prospered when they were rules-based with limited state power. Then they fell into the trap of rulers above the rules state power.
Thomas Piketty has shown with a simple equation--r>g, the rate of return on capital > economic and wage growth--that unregulated free markets always fail and lead to unsustainable inequality that makes capitalism into the institutional transvestite of neo-feudalism, which is where we're headed now. Put more simple, unregulated "capitalism saws off the tree branch upon which it sits."
Take it from a card-carrying lifelong capitalist self-employed forever: capitalism without government intervention to save capitalism from the capitalists is a utopian libertarian fantasy as unrealistic as utopian Marxist socialism. The best governed and countries with the best health, education and social mobility outcomes all have mixed social market economies with high levels of public investment equal to 35-55% of GDP.
To conclude: labeling the Nazis as Marxist and Socialist from a single quote in Mein Kampf, large parts of which were plagiarized from Henry Ford's The International Jew, is ahistorical oversimplification that ignores the true history of the Nazi Party.