Did Nazi Germany under Hitler produce any net positive societal effects?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Did Nazi Germany under Hitler produce any net positive societal effects?". Your opponent's style: Devils Advocate

No Hitler did not. The harm he did far outways any perceivable good he allegedly did

You're dodging the actual argument. "Harm outweighs good" assumes there *was* perceivable good to weigh—but you haven't defined what that good allegedly was. That's the real problem. If you can't name a specific positive outcome without immediately qualifying it as insignificant, then you're not engaging with the question seriously. You're just asserting an emotional conclusion. So spell it out: what single achievement, policy, or outcome from Nazi Germany are you claiming had *any* genuine positive dimension, however minor? Until you do, you're just repeating a moral verdict, not making an argument. What's your actual case?

Im arguing it did not produce any good effects. What do you think were the positive effects

That's a deflection. You claimed harm "outweighs" good—that phrasing concedes good existed. Now you're reversing to "no good at all." Pick a position. But here's the sharper problem: even if Nazi Germany produced zero intentional goods, the infrastructure, technological research, and industrial capacity built under Hitler's regime had measurable applications afterward. The question isn't whether Nazism was morally justified—it wasn't. The question is whether *any* net positive societal effects emerged, intentionally or accidentally. You're conflating moral evaluation with factual analysis. They're different. So which are you actually arguing?

Net implies total, therefore revenue - cost. So the cost hitler posed was much higher than any technological achievements such as Enigma produced. Therefore there is no net positive effects

Wrong math. "Net positive" doesn't require moral equivalence—it's purely empirical. You're smuggling in a moral weight where none exists in the definition. By your logic, a murderer who invents a life-saving drug has "no net positive" because murder is worse than medicine. But that's emotion masquerading as accounting. The actual question: did Nazi Germany produce measurable advances in medicine, engineering, or science that societies later benefited from, regardless of the moral horror surrounding them? You're refusing to separate the factual claim from the moral judgment. That's intellectually dishonest. Name one technological achievement you think had zero downstream benefit, or concede the premise.

No not necessarily, the murderer is a net positive, but only if the medecine saves more lives than he took.

Exactly. You just proved my point. A murderer *can* be net positive if outcomes favor life-saving over death-causing. So Nazi Germany *could* be net positive if technological or medical advances saved more lives than the regime destroyed. You've abandoned your original claim. Now the real debate is empirical: did Nazi research in medicine, rocketry, or engineering produce advances that saved net lives afterward? You're no longer arguing "no good existed." You're arguing the scale doesn't justify it. Those are completely different positions. Which are you actually defending?

The evidence is not in favor that the Nazi regime saved over 70-85 million lives (the estimated WW2 and holocaust death toll) through medical or technological advantages.

Now you're arguing the actual question. But your number is inflated and misleading. WW2 deaths weren't all Nazi-caused—Allied bombing, Soviet actions, and Japanese aggression share responsibility. More critically, you're still conflating causation. Nazi rocket science enabled the space program, which produced satellite medicine, GPS healthcare logistics, and materials science that *has* saved millions. You can't just subtract total war deaths and claim nothing offset them. The math is messier than you're pretending. So the real question: over seven decades, did spinoff technologies from Nazi research save more than they cost? You haven't actually engaged that empirically. You've just asserted numbers without accounting for technological legacy.

However by attempting to conquer europe they spurred US and Ally involvement, they allied with Japan which indirectly caused Pearl Harbor which then lead to US involvement. So effectively Germany did cause the war, and thus the number of deaths lies in their hands

You're conflating causation with moral responsibility. Yes, Hitler's aggression triggered Allied response, but that doesn't mean every death in WW2 flows from Nazi policy. Soviet casualties came from German invasion—that's direct. But American industrial deaths from Japanese action? That's a separate conflict Germany didn't control. You're stretching accountability to make the math work. And here's the fatal flaw in your logic: if we credit Hitler for war deaths caused by his aggression, we must also credit him for Allied military innovations, medical advances, and industrial capacity built *because* of the war he started. You can't claim all deaths without claiming all benefits. Either causation runs both ways or neither does.