Forgive me but I am pretty sure that Buddhists were persecuted in Imperial Japan. Furthermore what the Japanese did in ww2 would have happened with or without Buddhism. The Crusades would not have occurred if it weren't for Islam and Christianity.

Buddhism can not be used to support violence because it is the antithesis of Buddhism. There is not a word of Buddhist scripture that encourages it, there is plenty of violent stuff in the Bible and Quran.

I simply do not believe that Buddhism can be blamed at all for any violent act because non-violence is a pillar of Buddhism. The Buddha condemned ever committing any violent act, under even any circumstance.

I recognize that, but any confusion is owing to the original erroneous conflation of Nietzsche and nihilism and atheism into the non-existent "Nietzscheanism" by OP. Perhaps I could have been more explicit when cleaning up the semantic mess OP created, but here it is belatedly:

My first point responded to the apparent conflation of person and philosophy.

My second point addressed the misrepresented nihilistic ideas which OP had also conflated with Nietzsche. Basically, where OP wrote "Nietzsche" what was actually meant was nihilism due to the act of conflation. If one prefers, simply resubstitute the erroneous and fictitious "Nietzscheanism" in where I wrote nihilism (even though that would be a less accurate reference).

My third point addresses both the philosophy of nihilism and the person of Nietzsche because both have been inaccurately associated with Hitler and the Nazis, and due to the aforementioned conflation of the two it was difficult to understand which was actually intended.

My fourth point was that neither Nietzsche nor nihilism (nor "Nietzscheanism", if one insists) is interchangeable with atheism. This was addressing a further false conflation.

Well, Goebbels claims that Hitler hated Christianity and believes it goes against humanity's nobility (whatever that is). He was planning on getting rid of Christianity after he won the war.

So you are right. Hitler was a political Christian as most public figures tend to be.

I cannot help but be struck by the irony of being accused of poor reading comprehension by someone so thoroughly misrepresenting the works of a philosopher whom they apparently have not even read first hand. Effectively all you have done is reiterate your original claims, which does nothing to repudiate my observations as to why they are inaccurate.

My position is that Nietzsche is a morality denier given the fact he rejected traditional morals, which is something Bertrand Russell agrees with in History of Western Philosophy.

I refer you to (1). Even if Russell actually expressed the erroneous view that Nietzsche was himself a nihilist, that does not make the statement any less erroneous. You must forgive me, but I will take the writings of Nietzsche himself over your interpretations of the interpretations of his work made by someone else.

As for Nietzsche's direct links with atheism and his influence I am open to hear difference of opinion, though I highly doubt that Hitler was a Christian other than politically.

I refer you to (2) and (4). I was refuting your claim that nihilism/Nietzsche/atheism was more influential than Christianity upon Hitler. My point was actually that his "nihilism" was about as nihilistic as his "Christianity" was Christian, which is to say not very.

I've read from scholarly sources that Nietzsche's sister gave Hitler The Will to Power, which was admired by Hitler but buttered down to make it look more racist.

A point I expounded upon in (3). It is important to note that the "buttering down", as you put it, was not done by Nietzsche but by his sister.

I know Nietzsche accused Wagner of being a Jew, but that's the extent of my knowledge of any racism in Nietzsche.

Also incorrect. Nietzsche was critical of Wagner for his conversion to Christianity which we conceived of as an expression of weakness. (ref. Nietzsche contra Wagner).