It was the Protestant Evangelical Christians in German that supported Hitler
It was the Deutsche Christen movement, Evangelical Protestant Christians that were major supporters of Hitler and who campaigned for Hitler and aligned the German Evangelical Protestant Christian Church in support of the anti-semitism, racism of the Nazi party.
Re: It was LIBERAL Protestants in German that supported Hitler
Thanks to the 19th century Tubingen School most of the Protestant churches in Germany were Liberal, that is, like you and others here they didn't take the Bible as God's word. True believers like Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the other hand opposed Hitler, and he was executed for his part in the attempted assassination.
Re: It was LIBERAL Protestants in German that supported Hitler
Evidence Faith, evidence.
It was still Protestant EVANGELICAL Christians that were supporting the Nazis and were Nazis, and Nazism/Fascism are Conservative not Liberal organizations just as today's US Fascists are Conservatives.
AbE: you need to stop making God and Christianity in YOUR image.
Bonhoeffer began to see things "from below"—from the perspective of those who suffer oppression. He observed, "Here one can truly speak and hear about sin and grace and the love of God...the Black Christ is preached with rapturous passion and vision."
Which, of course, would motivate support for the Jews - thoroughly oppressed by the Nazi state, even more than Blacks were oppressed in America (the context of the quote.
It is also known that he made use of eugenics as he understood it from Darwinism (as did Margaret Sanger)
I do not know that that is known. How do you know it?
I understand your skepticism, especially given Faith's years of spouting bat-shit ***** fullshirt false and baseless proclamations. When it comes to the mindless spoutings of Faith and others like her, the best policy is always: when in doubt, doubt.
Well, as Rick Perry once said: "Even a broken clock is right once a day." (Rick Perry succeeded G. Dubya Bush as Governor of Texas, to which Texans started calling Dubya "the smart one").
There was a rather active and vibrant eugenics program operating in the USA in the early 20th Century. What it's ties to Darwinism were supposed to be, I don't know, but basically it was based on a conceit that if selective breeding is good enough for our livestock, then it's good enough for us.
A lot of National Socialist thought centered around maintaining the purity of genetic lines. Nazis were creationists who believed that the proper humans (AKA "Aryans") were a separate creation from the rest of humanity, the "sub-humans" -- curiously, I've seen the exact same story being used by USA racists.
A lot of film, both American and German, based in the Hitlerzeit ("Hitler Time") delves into the prevalence of eugenics in Nazi fixations.
First, there's the rhetoric of the mixing of separate creations, Aryans with "sub-humans", which is also a concern in American racism (refer to a nearly classic Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers strip on the subject -- see footnote).
First there was a cinema classic, Judgment at Nuremberg (the town's name is actually Nürnberg). In one scene, the neutering of an "inferior individual" in order to protect the germline was justified by the German attorney (Maximillian Schell) by the USA's own eugenics movement and some state eugenics laws, showing that the Americans judging the Germans had done the exact same things themselves.
Then there was a TV movie with Lee Remick, Of Pure Blood (1986), in which a German raised from childhood in the USA returns to Germany to learn that she was a product of a Nazi breeding program, the Lebensborn ("Fount of Life").
There was another TV movie or limited series depicting life in the Hitlerzeit. I forget whether it was in English or German, but I suspect that it was a USA production since it was so long ago as to preclude Netflix or the like. A couple's child had been born. The very first thing that the nurse did was to show the new parents that their child had ten fingers and ten toes. Id est, that it was normal.
Netflix has carried two series about the famous charity hospital in Berlin, Charité, meaning Barmherzlichkeit. The first series was set around 1890 with pioneering medical research including vaccines for devastating life-threatening diseases that we no longer even notice, thanks to their work back then. The second series is Charite at War, which takes place in the Hitlerzeit.
In the latter series, Charité at War, set in the Hitlerzeit, a couple (him a physician already and her just about ready to graduate as an physician) have a daughter. When she's born, they go through the same "ten fingers, ten toes" rigamarole to demonstrate she's normal. But then she develops hydrocephalus, which is not a Nazi approved genetic condition, and the parents have to deal with that.
The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers appeared in several strips in the Los Angeles Free Press back in the day (ie, pre-1970) along with a shorter strip about one of the brother's cat, "Fad Freddy's Cat", arguably some of the more creative material).
In one strip, two of the brothers wanted to take a cross-country trip, but one car didn't have any steering and the other didn't have any functioning engine or transmission. So they strapped the two cars together (not unlike two turtles humping, visually speaking) with the one in back providing the drive and the one in front providing the steering. Months later they reappear on the scene without the cars. When asked what had happened, they said that everything was fine until they reached the south where the cars were impounded for mixed-race intercourse (did I forget to mention that the car in back with the drive was black and the car in front with the steering was white?) -- a black car humping a white car? Oh hells no!
I do agree that the works of Darwin were used to justify the eugenics movement, but Darwin was not responsible for that. Putting eugenics at the feet of Darwin is the same as pointing the idea of social darwinism at him. He is not responsible for the bastardizations of his writings. Even if Darwin supported Eugenics, it is not part of his theory
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
Darwin himself may not have had such uses in mind, but the problem is that the ToE does lend itself to eugenics. If evolutionary changes are random, and Natural Selection gets rid of changes that are deleterious, and yet we can't avoid noticing that there are many such deleterious effects that remain, certainly in human populations, it's not hard to justify doing what nature seems to have failed to do as well as it should have, and get rid of those that remain. The theory lends itself to that kind of cold-blooded "scientific" way of dealing with life.
We are free of course to impose a more humane standard on the theory, but the theory itself offers no such humane standard and since there is a near-worship of Science that makes it the standard, good luck finding solid ground for your humane reasoning. We impose it anyway, of course, despite the lack of reasonable support for it. Although our choices are going to be irrational and subject to political trends.
And that lack of support does allow for some pretty inhumane decisions where we happen to prefer them. The popular support for abortion is an example where the Scientific Standard is applied because it fits our current political views of the Rights of Women and sexual freedom and denigrates the fetus as mere biological accident.
Since Christianity is now rejected as the standard it used to be in the west, it's easy to defend euthanasia for pain too. We're just going to be extinguished by death anyway so why suffer? It's undignified to suffer, let us die with dignity etc. That is a version of the Scientific or Biological definition of human life.
Moral choice is whatever we want it to be and can rationalize as what Evolution selected. So it's more moral to kill the fetus for the convenience of the parent(s) than the Christian view that it involves the destruction of a human life made in the image of God, and it's more moral to assist a person to die than to leave life and death in the hands of a God nobody believes in any more, refusing to call it murder.
And so on.
Eugenics is just one expression of the hegemony of this view of Science and the relativisation of morality. Unlike the examples I give above we aren't in favor of offing whole races, the Jews and Slavs in Hitler's case, the Blacks in Sanger's case (though maybe soon there will be such a case made for offing the White Race by the look of things), but the ToE lets us make such choices according to our own definition of what is good or bad for the human race at large. But our standard is fundamentally irrational, just depends on how we see things at the moment. Since we reject the Christian standard that the west used to live by we just make it up as we go along and Science seems to justify doing things that way.
Darwin may not have envisioned such a consequences of his theory but it's not hard to make the connections. In fact it's a lot harder to ignore them.