It is common for corrupt establishments to shift the blame for their own crimes upon the subjects they rule.
In the analysis of Nazism/fascism and the consequential crimes against civilians, we need to look into the factors that catalyzed their rise from formerly peaceful states.
The Communists created Nazis just like western interventionists created ISIS. Their actions created a vacuum that paved the way for extremists on the other extreme.
"Communist" has different meanings in different contexts. For this context we mean heavily organized and millenarianism movements.
Non-extremist/millenarianist movements (including socialist/Marxist influenced ones) will be classified as "populist". The "Social Revolutionaries" in Russia were populist. The Bolsheviks were not.
NATO's website had (unintentional) good admissions of this hidden within their anti Russian propaganda:
Many Western observers relate ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) with the resurrection of medieval barbarians. But it could actually be more usefully compared with revolutionary movements of the past, notably the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. ISIL shares with the Bolsheviks the peculiar “internationalism” that implies it could absorb people regardless of ethnicity, race or place of origin.
Like the Bolsheviks, ISIL is actually anti-statist – one of the most important aspects of the revolutionary ideology. Neither built a state as it is usually understood: a structure with a strict hierarchal bureaucracy, defined geopolitical interests and, in most cases, a desire to be a part of a concert of powers. With the Bolsheviks, this came much later, after the victories in the civil war. In the early years of the revolution, the Bolsheviks were in a millenarian mood, much as we see among members of ISIL. They wanted a worldwide revolution and the creation of a worldwide utopian “republic of workers and peasants”, living in harmony and free from oppression. ISIL members, too, are not planning to create a “normal” state as it is usually understood. They do not see the ISIL state as a model of any of the present states, and their invocations of the caliphate or the early “first caliphate” are mostly a sham. Their political and social-economic models are the product of modernity more than of medieval texts. In this way they resemble past revolutionaries who also appealed to historical examples. The French Revolutionaries exalted the traditions of ancient Greece and Rome , the Bolsheviks lauded the virtues of the French Revolution. Yet the French revolutionaries were not ancient Romans, nor were the Bolsheviks French revolutionaries.
Another essential aspects of the ISIL ideology and practice is not just the appeal to the global caliphate as the point of omega but also what Bolsheviks called “internationalism”. The Bolsheviks, of course, appealed to the creeds of Marxism, while their explicit major creed was the famous slogan “Proletariat of all countries unite!” This theory implied the discarding of nationalism as a “bourgeois” ideology that separates the proletariat from each other and prevents them from being united for the final Armageddon of class struggle leading to “communism” and transcending human history.
As a matter of fact, “communism” implied a leap in different dimensions. This could also be said about the jihadists of ISIL. Their protagonists proclaim that there are no ethnic divisions, or to be precise, that ethnic/origin divisions are meaningless. Their appeal to early Islam has grounds, for the premodern people did not have a sense of ethnicity/race. Still, even in early Islam, the original backbone of Islam was basically Arab. The strong emphasis on “internationalism” –the complete disregard of ethnic background and even a sort of predisposition to foreigners – is in many ways modern, or at least has a modern spin. The Bolsheviks also welcomed foreigners.
If the (October Bolshevik) Russian revolution and consequential anti Russian peasant genocides never happened, there would have been no Nazi state.
The Early Soviet political organization was based on "war communism" that used genocides on adversaries, "barrier troops" for dissidents, and they were expansionist.
They tried to invade Poland, they did invade Ukraine, they later invaded parts of China.
Internally, horrific genocides like this were common to fight "great Russian Chauvinism", and exterminate their culture.
This was intentionally done for political reasons alongside various other genocides of "reactionary" peasants, as Lenin's private writings state
Aid from outside Russia was initially rejected. The American Relief Administration (ARA), which Herbert Hoover had formed to help the starvation of World War I, had offered assistance to Lenin in 1919, on condition that they have full say over the Russian railway network and hand out food impartially to all. Lenin refused this as interference in Russian internal affairs.[4]
...In Lenins's secret letter to the Politburo, Lenin explains that the famine provides an opportunity against the church.[20] The Harvard historian Richard Pipes argued that the famine was used politically as an excuse for the Bolshevik leadership to persecute the Orthodox Church, which held significant sway over much of the peasant populace.[21] Pipes also considers the possibility that Lenin actually welcomed the famine as it weakened the peasantry and prevented the peasants from resisting the Bolsheviks.[22]
"The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917-1945" details how the European/Russian/Jewish ethnic conflict from the Soviet Unions revolt spilled over into Germany:
The significance of substantial White emigre influences on Hitler’s Weltanschauung has become more apparent since Brigitte Hamann convincingly argued in her 1996 work, Hitlers Wien: Lehrjahre eines Diktators (Hitler’s Vienna:Apprentice Years of a Dictator),that Hitler was not yet anti Semitic during his “hunger years” in Vienna from 1908 to 1913. He even defended the Jews in intense political arguments with those who denounced them.11 Hamann’s book refutes the earlier historical consensus which had contended that Hitler developed an acutely anti-Semitic world-view during his time in Vienna.12
Further indications of the relatively late development of Hitler’s far right political ideas exist. Hitler’s correspondence and private writings from World War I (1914–1918) lack anti-Semitic passages.13 Hitler’s comrades during World War I did not detect anti-Semitic views among his beliefs.14 Moreover, according to Aide-de-Camp Hans Mend, Hitler’s immediate commanding officer on the Western Front in World War I, Hitler occasionally praised Jews, and he exhibited socialist leanings. He often held “rabble-rousing speeches” in which he called himself a representative of the “class-conscious proletariat.” 15 Hitler only began to crystallize his virulent anti-Bolshevik, anti-Semitic Weltanschauung in Munich in late 1919 in the context of intercultural collaboration between alienated volkisch Germans and radical White emigres.
It seems clear if Russia not suffered regime change, that would have prevented the vacuum for Nazism rising, then no WW2 or Jewish Holocaust.
Because those "revolutionaries" clearly influenced Hitler's extremism as he cited the example of Russia as "the most terrible example of slavery" in the world:
Russia furnishes the most terrible example of such a slavery. In that country the Jew killed or starved thirty millions of the people, in a bout of savage fanaticism and partly by the employment of inhuman torture. And he did this so that a gang of Jewish literati and financial bandits should dominate over a great people.
Imagine leaders who pushed overthrowing Saddam, Gadaffi, Assad. Are they "innocent" of the rise of ISIS and all that bloodshed?
We don't even need to limit the focus to "the Jews", we can hold all regime change activists accountable regardless of background, the focus should be on preventing massacres rather than blaming collective groups.
But if we can't say "regime change in the Arab world had nothing to do with ISIS", why should the communist revolts of the early 1900's be viewed as "innocent"?