>And an appeal to the wisdom of political scientists is >amusing when made by one who holds that the Nazis were >socialists because the name of their party included the >word "Socialist".
It would be amusing if it were so. It is not so. The Nazis were socialists, plain and simple. But, I can understand your confusion.
Think of it this way. You, Lou Talman, can be defined as a mathematician but that is not all you are. For example, some mathematicians are religious, some are not. Some are politically left, some are politically right. Some are gay, some are straight, and so on. To say that you are a mathematician says something about you, but it does not say everything.
Similarly, Karl Marx was a socialist but that is not all he was. Marx was also an anti-semite, a deadbeat, and an adulterer. If you feel the need to read a truly crude piece of anti-semitism, you could try his essay,
Naturally, there is a lot of apologia about "The Jewish Question" (in typical socialist fashion, they will bury you with words, many of indeterminate meaning). Just read the thing for yourself, then let us know. (Probably, you will want to take a shower after you read the essay and before you respond to us.)
As a socialist, Adolf Hitler came by his anti-semitism honestly. But, he was more than that. Hitler developed a quite elaborate theory of race, and this theory was one of two principle distinctions between Nazism and, what was at that time, mainstream socialism.
Mainstream socialism was and is international in character, and this is the second great distinction between mainstream socialism and nazism. You may recall that Karl Marx asserted that a German worker has more in common with a French worker than with a German capitalist, and likewise for the French worker ("Workers of the world unite!" Blah, blah, blah). Both Hitler and Mussolini were disabused of that particular delusion in the trenches of WW I, where they saw German workers (soldiers) killing French workers (soldiers) and Italian workers (soldiers) killing Austrian workers (soldiers), with great abandon.
It was their war experience that lead first Mussolini then Hitler to formulate a nationalist brand of socialism. Well, the complexities go on, so I will wrap it up.
Hitler was virulently anti-communist because the German communists were allied with the Soviet communists. Indeed, they were practically agents of the Kremlin. And, even if that was not exactly right (probably was), Hitler certainly believed it. This violated both Hitler's fierce nationalism, and his profound racism since he viewed Slavs as lesser people. (He intended to kill enough Slavs to manufacture "lebensraum" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebensraum and enslave the rest. Oh, and everybody was okay with killing Jews.)
Hitler also had tactical differences with the communists. Hitler learned from V.I. Lenin's early mistakes in economic organization, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy Principally, he allowed some private property---just as Lenin did in his New Economic Policy and after the disaster of the initial efforts at collectivization---but, like Lenin and Mussolini, he exercised extensive control over private property.
I feel compelled to make one last point along this line. Many politically naive people think fascism is not socialism because of Hitler's bloody anti-communism. But, this is wrong, and there are analogies. For example, Sunni Muslims and Shi'ite Muslims have been murdering each other for nearly the whole of Islam's 1,400 years, but nobody thinks that either confession is not Muslim.
There is hardly any doctrinal difference between the two. Their difference is entirely political, centering on succession rights to Muhammad. The Shi'ites (literally, "Party of Ali") believe that Ali, first cousin to Muhammad, should have been caliph upon the death of the prophet. The Sunnis believe that Muhammad's father-in-law, abu Bakr, was the rightful heir to the caliphate. The rest is history.
Thus, just because Hitler wanted to rip the throats out of the communists, this is no evidence whatsoever that Hitler himself was not a socialist.
Nazism, the German brand of fascism, is more difficult to measure because most of the writing about it tends to focus, understandably, on its racism and anti-semitism. Also, a great deal of writing about nazism is by socialists, who have a very big axe to grind and have no desire to be identified with Adolf Hitler. The best I can suggest is this. The easiest course of action would be to find a non-socialist political scientist, or a non-socialist historian, with whom to discuss the matter.
The other possibility is to read "Mein Kampf". This is clearly a less desirable approach, but I can encourage you. Almost everybody claims that "Mein Kampf" is turgid and miserable to read (even in the German). It does go on. It certainly suffers from an insufficiencey of editing, but I found it not nearly as miserable to read as everyone claims. So far as I know, "Mein Kampf" is the closest thing there is to a "Nazi Manifesto".
>I'm sure that everyone at Math-Teach would love to hear >your justification for your reliance on name in one case >but your rejection of the same in another.
There you go. And, if anyone is outraged by the length and nature of my little essay, they should blame you :)