are, as you say, more their things.
Hitler faced the choice between conflicting recommendations.
On one side a "free market" technocratic faction within the government, centered around Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht, Minister of Economics Walther Funk and Price Commissioner Dr. Carl Friedrich Goerdeler
calling for decreased military spending, free trade, and a moderation in state intervention in the economy. This faction was supported by some of Germany's leading business executives, most notably Hermann Duecher of AEG, Robert Bosch of Robert Bosch GmbH, and Albert Voegeler of Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG. On the other side
the more politicized faction favored autarkic policies and sustained military spending. Characteristically, Hitler hesitated before siding with the latter ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Pre-war_economy:_1933.E2.80.931939
He very much did come down on the side of a state-controlled economy and 'autarky' (opposing international trade and striving for economic self-sufficiency).
Most modern conservatives in the US and Europe could not fairly be described as proponents of Hitler's wild economic beliefs. The 'technocratic faction' the advice from which Hitler eventually rejected was more similar to modern conservatives - "'free market', decreased military spending, free trade, and a moderation in state intervention in the economy".
In some respects the disagreement between Germany's 'technocrats' and its 'more politicized faction' resembles that between the republican establishment and the tea party wing of their party. And resembles the different philosophy of 'center-right' conservatives in Europe and the far-right like the French National Front and UKIP in the UK.
= new reply since forum marked as read