No, not at all!!
They date back to the 18th century and the French Revolution.
They do date back the the 18th century, this is true. Although they had to do with the seating in the English House of Commons, not the French. However, my statement remains correct.
There was a desperation on the part of the left to paint Hitler on the right. Serious historians such as Shirer pointed out that this was absurd at the time, but leftist academia was desperate to cull Hitler from the pack. Our beloved ally Josef Stalin was of the left, FDR was of the left, Lord John Maynard Keynes was of the left. To academia, these were the good guys. Therefore Hitler MUST be defined as the opposite.
The reality is significantly different, of course.
As you pointed out, Hitler knew nothing of economics and appeared to have little interest in it. He stumbled about for years, then latched on to Mussolini's Fascism. Shirer argued that Hitler never really grasped (nor cared) even this. Fascism offered a working model, allowing Hitler to concentrate on his military aims.
Fascism, the control of the means of production by the state through the merger of government and corporate power structures is born of Mussolini attempting to make Marxist doctrine work. As you are sure to know, Mussolini was a Bolshevik and compatriot of Lenin. When he formed the Fascisti, he declared that Marxism could not work (clearly correct, as Lenin showed a few years later) and sought to refine socialism into a workable system.
So Hitler adopted the economic system of Bolshevik and radical leftist as the foundation for the Reich. Further, after the complete and total failure of Marxism in the USSR, Lenin adopted virtually the same system with his NEP.
Of course usage only increased with the formation of nation states and party politics (as opposed to monarchies or principalities), but the terms pre-date the widespread usage of the concept of small government by around two centuries. The terms still mean today basically what they meant in 1789...with some 'evolution', as you say.
The terms have utterly no similarity to the original use. The American left is far closer to the Monarchists, both seeking an all powerful state which cares for and rules a subservient populace. Where the liberals, seeking to shed the shackles of kings and barons, is very close to the American right.
One very good example of a left-wing government campaigning on the basis of small government is the Lane administration in New Zealand during the mid-1980's. Under Finance Minister Roger Douglas the government slashed spending, sold assets and privatised government departments in a manner most GOP supporters would absolutely admire.
Then what was "left wing?"
But they were also true to their left-wing social policies, banning US ships from NZ harbours, increasing welfare spending and promoting green values.
So the held liberal social positions and conservative economic positions? Sounds like Libertarians.
No, that is not true at all - Hitler was put into power by the aristocracy,
Hindenberg put Hitler in power due to coercion.
and many of his policies were about repaying that debt. He focused on delivering dividends to share holders above all, and did so with some success. It's easy to make a profit when you can use slave labour, of course.
Nonsense. Hitler cleared the holdings of the old money, putting Nazi stooges into all the critical positions, including the boards of all major industry.
The single biggest factor in Hitler's hold on power was his support amongst the wealthy industrialists who controled production. They worked with him, and him with them.
Hitlers hold on power was based on terror. And many became wealthy, but these were Nazi stooges, not the Deutscher Adel.
Folks, we are literally trying to debate with the mentally handicapped. Of all the outrageous and absurd comments Saigon as made, this one is the gem to end all gems. 
lmao
