So, now that I have some time (not really but I can act like it), I'm going to weigh in here, but only a bit as I spent too much time debating last night.
I personally find blanket statements like "Hitler was x" to usually be rather simplistic. Even saying Hitler was a nutjob is not telling the proper story. He was a nutjob who rose to power by playing on the fear and suffering of his people.
I need to squash something here:
As I pointed out in the thread this was split from Hitler's party was the Nationalsozialismus National Socialist Party Nazi just happens to be an abbreviation. It was originally a worker's party before Hitler started to steer it into towards racism and world domination. However, their economic platform remained socialist.
This is a bit like calling the DPRK Democratic because democratic is in the name. And as you point out, their economic platform has nothing in the remotest sense to do with their social platform. It is popular to call them right-wing extremists because people tend not to think of economic issues as right or left any longer - the Democratic party now has a better history of being fiscally conservative than the Republicans, and yet we call them left and right wing, respectively.
Besides, Hitler became the dominant force in his party rather early on, and well:To quote
Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
Socialism was merely a gimmick for him to gain power, nothing more.