and i gavr a number, 3000 not 70000
Yeah, later, as this proposal kept being downsized and modified since it obviously wouldn't fly. OK, let's take your 3,000.
And yet:
1. Still a dictatorship. You know, a jackbooted party militia, a secret political police, dissenters disappearing in the night, political murders, no free elections. No proposal has changed that yet - with good reason, because the worst aspects (the Holocaust, the world war) were removed first, but if you turn the Nazis into sincere democrats, what's left to be called "Nazi"? But people in Western democracies still dislike dictators, you see.
2. Dead toll in context. OK, so on the one hand you have Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt killing more civilians than 3,000 -
as collateral damage in war (and colonial wars, to boot). Therefore, your best comparison for Hitler aren't them. It's Stalin or Pol-Pot - dictators who killed their own countrymen in peacetime due to deranged political ideas. So the final judgement for Hitler wouldn't be "nearly as good as Jackson and T. Roosevelt", it would be: "as bad as Stalin and Pol-Pot, but not as powerful". Not exactly a shining endorsement.
3. Butterflies. Some poster mentioned that the very notion of Holocaust is influenced today by what happened in Nazi Germany. That's right. Likewise, the impact on collective memory of those 70,000 disabled people murdered is affected by the millions of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and others likewise killed by the same regime.
Now, imagine the Nazis do not, indeed, kill millions in the camps, and don't wage a murderous world war. What's the effect on this unprecedented (in modern Western history) policy of
mass murdering defenseless, harmless citizens because they suffer from disabilities? That it gets magnified. Oops. Throw in a few hundreds political opposers who also got murdered by the Nazis.
4. Appropriate comparison. You are now comparing murder with sterilization and unethical medical experiments that endangered the subjects' health. Why don't you look up the average sentencing, in your own jurisdiction, for first-degree murder, and for medical malpractice? That should tell you what's the chasm in the average person's assessment of the former and of the latter. What's next, you'll compare rape with embezzlement?
5. Name recognition. You know, this watering down Nazism for the purpose of making it more acceptable also has a side effect I only now notice. If what remains of Nazism is "a dictatorship that killed political dissenters, remained in power for a while, muddled through with the economy, and finally got done over with and replaced by democracy" - well, what's worth remembering it for, for the average citizen of a Western democracy today? If you ask your next door neighbor about his opinion about Stroessner, won't his reply be "Stroessner who?". To be remembered as a nice guy, you first have
to be remembered at all.
Naturally, in your scenario, Hitler would have that one distinction over Stroessner or Franco or Antonescu or Somoza: the mass murder of disabled persons. You do know that 18% of the current population of the USA have some form of disability, including the mildest ones? Add their relatives. What do you think that means when it comes to assessing a regime that had that distinctive feature?