One example would be their "social Darwinist" worldview. Usually this would make most people think about them violently culling the weak. But what about other races? It stands to reason that they would not want to strengthen other races. So they would actually not want to apply that kind of "selection" to other races. And in fact we get evidence of this attitude in the NS sources. From the table talks:
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/plan- ... adolf/571/All of western Europe must be freed of the Jews within a given period. […] It is therefore not recommendable to deport them to Siberia because with their climate-resistance, they would only become even more hardened. It is better – as the Arabs don’t want them in Palestine – to transport them to Africa and thus submit them to a climate which impairs every person of our resilience, thereby eliminating all points of common spheres of interest with the European part of humanity.
From Goebbels diaries:
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... ws-part-2/There, under the harshest living conditions, they would undoubtedly develop again a strong life-element. He would much prefer to resettle (aussiedeln) them in central Africa. There they would live in a climate that would certainly not make them strong and resistant. In any case, it is the Führer’s goal to make Western Europe completely Jew-free. Here they may no longer have their homeland.
Here Hitler explicitly says that he doesn't want to deport them to Serbia precisely because of its harsher climate. Under this logic, it would lead to them treating Jews less harshly. So any claims that they would absolutely kill off all Jews unable to work cannot be treated as a given.
Likewise, in regards to war, this is what Hitler said in Mein Kampf:
Here Hitler gives an essentially eugenic argument against war. Therefore, the idea that Hitler absolutely wanted war for ideological reasons can't be maintained as an absolute certainty.In 1914 whole armies were composed of so-called volunteers who, owing to a criminal lack of conscience on the part of our
feckless parliamentarians, had received no proper training in peacetime, and so were thrown as defenseless cannon-fodder to the enemy. The 400,000 who thus fell or were maimed on the battlefields of Flanders couldn’t be replaced. Their loss was something far more than merely numerical. With their death, the scales, which were already too light on the good side, now shot upwards, toward baseness, treachery, and cowardice; in short, toward the mass of the extreme bad.
And there was something more:
While, for four-and-a-half years, our extreme best were being horrendously thinned on the battlefields, our extreme worst succeeded wonderfully in saving themselves. For each hero who made the supreme sacrifice and ascended the steps of Valhalla, there was a slacker who cunningly dodged death in order to engage in business that was more or less useful at home.
And so the end of the war gave us the following picture: The broad middle stratum of the nation gave its share of blood sacrifice. The extreme best, with outstanding heroism, sacrificed themselves almost completely. The extreme bad preserved themselves almost completely, by taking advantage of absurd laws and because of the non-application of articles of war.
This well-preserved scum of our nation then made the Revolution, and could do so only because the extreme best elements were no longer there to oppose it: they were no longer alive.
None of this is to settle the argument of what Nazi policy was toward the Jews or toward the war. I'm not claiming this is a universal ideological Nazi law or anything. So if anyone wants to respond by showing Jews being treated more harshly than others under some policies (the Kinna report would be a good example of this) that would be missing the point. It absolutely could hypothetically be the case that they wanted to kill as many Jews as possible and from an economic and rational view they killed many Jews unable to work. But it can't be assumed ahead of time that's what happened based on ideology, it would have to be proven by the facts. Likewise with his view on war. Yes he had views of Lebensraum that he laid out in Mein Kampf and elsewhere. At the same time, he also had views on how war could be dysgenic. These two ideas were in his mind, one idea that would make him more prone to starting a war and one that would make him less prone to starting a war. It absolutely could hypothetically be the case that he thought the gains of Lebensraum, if he pulled it off, would be worth the risk of dysgenics that come with war, but that would again have to be proven by the facts.
