Anyway, the system overall appears consistent to me: glorifying nature and culture. They have made advances with respect to animal-wellfare and protection of nature that we still benefit from today in that (a) they the raised the bar at the time and (b) the laws introduced then are still in place (when slightly modified).
They also introduced the first of a kind wellfare system for Germans and put a strong emphasis on family.
If you can understand and read German, this is a great documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vtfdfILdAw. It's funny just how much less tainted that documentary is then what we get to see to today.
I think there's a lot of hearsay about Nazi Germany and virtually anything you read on it is tainted either with hatred (99% of us) or fanatism (1%). I used to absolutely hate on the system, because no wonder, we are brought up in school to hate it just based on emotion and bad imagery. If you've read 1984 by George Orwell, going to history class in a way felt like the two minutes of hate. For example, there's plenty of evidence that Hitler did not want a war and tried his best to avoid it, yet in school it was already clear without a doubt that Hitler wanted a war for "world domination" or some none sense like that. Again, if you understand German, this is fantastic: https://www.amazon.de/1939-Krieg-Anlauf-Zweiten-Weltkrieg/dp... and a talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJuvWn7TFdY.
Questions I'd ask would be along the lines of questioning whether or not there were actual ethical principles at play, and if so what were they? I'm not sure that racial or national supremacy is really meaningful when you're not the person believing in it. "Race" for example isn't a particularly rigorous concept, so what ethical structures could you build around it?