And he is correct in some of his criticisms of it

And also in how Germans mutated it into a more tolerable thing

Exactly.
Real Politik demands strategy. You work with what you have.
A tragedy is only a tragedy, not an accomplishment.
If he went around dressed as Wotan and attempting to make a rebirth of druidic or whatever traditions happen, he would've been laughed at from day 1.

I don't believe in mobilizing the blind quantity of people, but in cultivating quality

A small reich of high quality is better than a large reich of poor quality

Idealistic, but not realistic.

the hordes will overrun your high-quality reich.

On the contrary, it is what is realistic

that is the problem

Most people have to be left behind

I agree.

But that plan may work in the course of hundreds or thousands of years.
National Socialism simply wanted to turn the tide.
The strategy failed, and perhaps that "by quantity" focus was the problem, as you say.

It is what works in thousands of years, but not in decades

The opposite approach seems effective in the short term, but ends up changing nothing in the long term

Nazi victory would have assured one thing: The survival of the race

but it wouldn't have done much else

I think Savitri Devi thinks that WW2 made it possible for that refinement of underground NS to happen: NS people (not neo-Nazis) are quite high minded, and move only in elite circles, amongst themselves, and focus on quality rather than quantity. Lesson learned.

because its guiding philosophy from which the politics came was underdeveloped

@Hagel , yep, and that is exactly what Hitler intended.

That is not an achievement to scoff at however

He did not intend NS as an eternal thing, but only a thing to turn the tide.
Again, very clearly stated in *Mein Kampf*.

The race must survive

He said that his successors MUST CHANGE AND READAPT.

If what you are saying is true, then it could have been a good first step had he not been such a fool

to not wait for atomic bombs when he had the greatest and most scientists, to attack east and west simultaneously, etc

He was "such a fool", but probably not in the way you think.

to not listen to his generals

But it's still a first step that's irrelevant to me now

and not a doctrine that I will follow, as all we know of is the first step

I think arrogance got the best of him.

He literally scoffed at his generals, at least from Speer's perspective.

@Hagel , do read: https://archive.org/details/StolfiHitlerBeyondEvilAndTyranny

With respect to your conclusions, I basically agree with them.

It is the departure points which are think are a misunderstanding. (socialism, aryanism, etc.)
And these may be crucial to understand that many positions did not dictate the defeat, so they cannot be judged as wrong.
E.g. Germany's socio-economic model was miraculous, and not at all a "failure". Despite what @diversity_is_racism , its "socialist" component was not a detriment, nor did it have anything to do with losing the war.
Do not throw the baby with the water, or something like that.

NS as it became, not as it was conceived, wasn't socialism, it was welfare capitalism

And some of the welfare was not toward money pits, but toward cultivating potential

and that's good

exactly

It may have been part of why they had so many chemists, engineers, etc

If you were smart, you got free stuff, and a spot at university

you got promoted based on talent