I referred to the era more than the nazis but you are essentially correct. Other than the decently researched part which others have done a good job breaking down in the other threads
It's surprising to me that you did not foresee that the emphasis, for the reader of your comment, would be on the word Nazi, which brings to mind propaganda that is far more disconcerting than the Smithsonian article.
It was a time of a lot of apprehension and war so the kinds of propaganda/marketing of that era were interesting from every country and sometimes business. We are in a different time now but some of the way science and language is subverted are very similar.
The climate language first it started as skeptic, which is inherently anti-science since any scientist should be a skeptic and consensus is nonsense. Climate warming and cooling (if you're old enough to remember that) was re-branded to change. Skeptic is now denier, an extremely negative connotation title. You can see how everything is ramped up until your enemies are on the extreme opposition.
I get your criticism. My intention was to go at the style of propaganda not the scope. If they are going to label me a denier and evoke extreme reactions to an oppositional view, that doesn't mean I should do the same to them.
It's surprising to me that you did not foresee that the emphasis, for the reader of your comment, would be on the word Nazi, which brings to mind propaganda that is far more disconcerting than the Smithsonian article.