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

proven talent

So instead of the strong carrying the weak, the weak carried the strong

and i think this is one of the positive traits

no reason to throw that away

I'm not against all welfare

I can see that, I am saying, in general terms.

But I recognize that if you must force people to do it against their will, then it isn't sustainable

In regards to our conversation about throwing out NS or not.

Did he force people, actually? Does a miraculous success in 6 years show an oppressed and miserable people?