Not to rehash the issue, but I actually found the 'official line' of Christianity under the Nazi party has a whole article on WP by the name I recalled it having, and learned a bit:
Wikipedia: "Positive Christianity" article
That said, in 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, explained that "Positive Christianity" was not "dependent upon the Apostle's Creed", nor was it dependent on "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied, rather, it was represented by the Nazi Party: "The Führer is the herald of a new revelation", he said.
After reading the above, I tend to think of some Nazi mystics, taking the Greek (and therefore Indo-European language i.e. 'Aryan') word "Christ" and separating it quite blatantly from the Abrahamic messianic tradition of Jesus as a transliteration of the term 'Messiah' among "gentiles".
I know they took Nordic / Teutonic folklore, esp. via Karl-Maria Wiligut (one whom Himmler made an SS specialist on all things religious, as he deemed him an inspired svengali of sorts - much in the same tone of admiration he had for Der Fuhrer, perhaps he felt it was a prerogative fallen in his lap to seek out any who impressed upon him a zealotry in revisionism for all things German) who took the phrase "Irmin Christianity", ('Irmin' presumably from a old name related to Hermann or Arminius, constituting a German subvariety of the more widely recognized Norse/Scandinavian pagan trinity consisting of Irmin – possible epithet equivalent to Thor, the 'heer'-man or soldier god – Ingwaz – from language root "-ing-", usu. suffix or prefix meaning i.e. 'the begetter', likely parallel to Freyr the fertility deity) and – Istwo (possibly Odin), though these associations aren't universally applied, I think one switched Istwo/Irmin with Thor/Odin etc. when I read some such interpretation elsewhere: of course, the original deities never likely had 1-to-1 comparisons if these were taken from fragmentary source information, we get German deities like "Saxnot" & "Forseti" we don't see in other traditions like those "the vikings" had.
Regardless Wiligut (who went by the name 'Weisthor' - "white-Thor" - while Himmler's advisor) stressed 'Irmin Christianity' as venerating 'Baldur Christ", the pure, incorruptible bodied, son of Wotan. This is probably how some in the more mystical circles of the SS elite interpreted "Positive Christianity", esp. after reading the non-SS office Church Affairs Minister quote such a thing about "faith in Christ as the son of God" not being perquisite to adhering to 'Positive Christianity', but espousing "the Fuhrer heralding new revelation". It was all very pragmatic and functional. What it yielded for them, conduct, was all that was sought it seems as apparent as ever to me.
The mainstream distanced themselves from all the pagan-revival sentiment, but they definitely left open any recourse for redefining the German self-concept. I personally feel it all would have been dispensed with had they had more success.
EDIT:
As for the best tenets of what has become Christianity's tradition, back to the original subject, I do think many philosophers, monastics with the church, Thomas Aquinas to Gottfried Leibniz etc.: had some very poignant extrapolations in philosophic speculation of what 'spirit' was, and though a lot of those concepts of godhead worked their way around what is seen as "the Christian principle" of faith in Jesus directly, I think some good facets of that personality principle, as in the personification about a spiritual 'Logos' and embodied renunciation in the hopeless appeal to it all beyond the world of temporal gains despite the way the story of the cross ended in our living historical account; has redeeming (no pun meant) religious context as a character reference by which one should live and believe against all odds.
Back a bit to this post's original premise: I dare say that what persecution and fatalism there was inherent in the religious premise of what Christianity means - there also existed, one could say, what was reflected in the stark portrayal of the Holocaust's jewish persecution. That a message of forgiveness can come from such a thing in itself can be condoned as testifying some spiritual veracity (by saying 'spiritual' that doesn't mean "supernatural", mind you not to get them conflated) –if one's spirit is a moral guiding principle of character. It is when it becomes coercive and aims at persecution for not following appearances between which the message gets lost, that the "false" charge and acquisition can be levied - and even then a caveat for what amounts to a constant balance between needing to proselytize where asked and where it isn't solicited or required.
For the risk then becomes coercion of one's own view intrusive to another, and just how intrusive is how open we are to the spirit of the matter versus the letter of the law prescribed by how we define ourselves. Neither all of 'christianity' (nor every individual member of the Nazi party) can justly have extended over them the guilt of even a majority of shortcomings supposed and applied for all contexts and all times.
Treating the individual as worthy of forgiveness for all connotations bestowed upon them through the prejudices we inherit from around us, that is the good spirit of Christianity.
Something that the association with Nazism cannot in good faith reconcile. As that would be nothing more than enumerating facts of what distinguish us, objectifying what we call ourselves so that we align superficially to the criteria, or it can be in concrete relation, by the subject of what it means whereby we choose to identify as something, and the spirit in good conscience striving to be as much, and not solely by the status quo whereby we assure others we maintain only the external trappings by which we pass off among others to appear as those - and so in heart must cease to be categorically those type any longer, even if it is only we have outgrown the maturity of our peer group who continue to so identify.
This objectification of Christianity, as it is for anything, is always the falsification of it's true spirit. Objectification always contains a falsification of thing objectified. Living by absolute definitions without a common understanding of the spirit of those definitions is quite counter to so many other aspects abiding within which they distinguish as the moving principle of an identity, whether Christian / atheist, who hold dearly to an aspect is to maintain rejection of the opposite. The dichotomy by which the objectifying trap commences.
Nazism, on the other hand, was deep rooted in objectification directly (at least as to its legacy, that remainder definition brought through impact) To classify, stigmatize, and alter in it's material (accessible) component, the world around it (expediting what it meant to be a Nazi, many times over in short order). This is the historical legacy of all things, perhaps, and faith has been utilized as the basis to some objective ends, but not the legacy of the individual entities still playing out in the field of life such as the internal motivations ascribed to in the faith.
