In general, I think there's dangers in getting too granular and fine detail with these arguments. People write literal textbooks on this sort of stuff. Sure, if there's some specifically egregious specific examples to rebut it's worth considering provided there's a credible source (reputable science journal yes, newspaper ... probably not - that sort of thing).
I think this sort of thing is probably a better area in general for what we do and what our remit is which is looking at how arguments are constructed when it comes to factual topics as opposed to total fiction like izzus did here:
Meat eaters are like Hitler.
Point at anyone and I can compare at least some aspect of them to Hitler. Take for example:
You like dogs? Hitler loved dogs. How about women's rights? Hitler was pro-choice, and claimed that women were the backbone of Germany. How about socialism? Hitler had many socialist policies put into action, such as the distribution of wealth and restrictions on what banks could do. Oh and here's a good one: Gun control. Hitler heavily restricted who could own firearms in Nazi Germany.
I just did the exact same thing Priya did, and now dog-loving liberals are also like Hitler. The point being that comparing anyone to Hitler is easy. And stupid. It's just a way to get your statements kicked in the ass like I just did to this claim. So don't fucking do it.
(I'm going to mention here that the Third Reich had some of the worlds best anti-smoking campaigns even by today's standards. However, you obviously can't separate it from the rest of what they did.)