Part of the reason Adolf Hitler had both Strasser and Rohm killed was not merely because they were extremely popular rivals for power within the Nazi Party who refused to abnegate themselves to his will as cronies like Goering, Himmler, Goebbels and Hess did, but because he feared that their constant revolutionary socialist agitation was going to lead to a coup by the German military backed by Germany's monied industrialists.
Hitler, of course, much like today's conservatives, attacked the Weimar government as "intrusive" and "socialist", and he HATED "Bolshevism" and "social democrats" (socialists), and proclaimed it loudly on almost every page of MEIN KAMPF.
Bullock, Toland, Heisler, and hundreds of others verify that there was no nationalization in Nazi Germany, and indeed, the general trend was in the other direction. Railroads were amalgamated and standardized for military purposes, but this had been a plan for at least 80 years!
Himmler, well before the Wannsee Conference, and after the "Night of the Long Knives", which eventuated the disposal of any and all left-sympathizing party members, including Ernst Roehm, about 1938, enunciated to a mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.):
"We are of the right and of order. We shall sweep away Jews, Bolsheviks, and liberal democracies as one sweeps away flies."
Nazism was NOT a socialist phenomenon. The names that totalitarian parties of left and right give themselves are aimed at power, not accurate self-description. The 1990s Russian fascist party of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, for example, called itself the Liberal Democratic Party, though it was neither liberal nor democratic.
The Nazi party was originally called the German Workers Party, and it adopted the the word "Socialist" to attract working class support through the idea of granting social welfare to Aryan Germans as a vote catcher, but the primary inspiration of its founder, Anton Drexler, was German nationalism, while later founding influences added virulent anti-semitism to the mix.
Indeed, the two Nazi electoral campaigns of 1933 were funded mainly by the industrialists of the Ruhr valley, who opened their pockets to the Nazis only after Hermann Goering personally assured them in a series of meetings that there was NOTHING socialist about National Socialism. Had there been, they would never have opened their wallets and the world might have been saved a catastrophe.
Prescott Bush and many other rightists on the international stage admired Hitler precisely because they saw him as the man to smash socialism and the left. And that he most certainly did in Germany: his first action after the Enabling Act, giving dictatorial powers, was passed in 1933 was to ban trade unions.
Over the course of his regime, it's estimated that around 2 million socialists, trade unionists, communists and other left-wingers were murdered by Hitler's regime, most of them in the death camps. Many of the victims had warned of the evils of fascism and been ignored by appeasement in Europe and North America, with much of the appeasement orchestrated by the political right.
Now the Anglo-American right tries to rewrite history and pretend that they were not complicit in this appeasement, or even that the Nazism they once collaborated with so much was really a form of "socialism". It wasn't, not in any degree. If Hitler had been a socialist, he would never, ever have been bankrolled, appeased and admired by centres of conservative power in the way that he was. It is an insult to those 2 million victims of Nazism to pretend that there was anything socialist about the regime that killed them, just as it would be an insult to claim that Mao's government was conservative when it claimed to be safeguarding the revolution's values through the mass slaughter of the Cultural Revolution.
To give Hitler's real views on socialism - whether Marxist or in its reformist European social democratic type - here's the great historian of the movement and biographer of Hitler, Alan Bullock, from his magisterial and definitive book on the subject:
"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism".
Alan Bullock, "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny", New York: HarperCollins, 1971.