Luther is a tough issue. Given that his society was one in which 100% of the people called themselves Christians, there was no exposure to an alternate belief system, and "Christian" was fairly synonymous with righteous, I'd say definitions have shifted significantly, and that if anyone were to appear today saying what Luther actually said about issues other than Jews, 100% of American, church-going "Lutherans" would denounce him as the very spawn of Satan himself.
Generally, it is sensible to allow someone to define themselves, particularly if that person is sincere, as Luther may well have been. But Luther insisted that no-one before him who had ever been recognized as a Christian leader was, in fact, really Christian, and created radical new beliefs (again, rejected by nearly all modern Protestants -- I'm not talking sola fidelis) and called them "true Christianity." He's plainly not lumping himself in with those who had previously called themselves Christians, so I think it is fair to not lump him in also.
Modern LutherANs should be called Christians, I would say, but not only do LutherANs reject Luther's planned enslavement of the Jews, they also reject his notion that human beings should sin to their heart's content.
Further, as warped as it sounds, Luther's evil plans were not nearly as removed from Christianity as Hitler's. Luther believed Jewish leaders were wilfully leading their people to Hell. As barbaric and foolish as his premises and remedies were, they were based on a presumption that Jews could be saved, if the obstacles to their salvation were removed, and that ultimately, the Jews would be saved by Christ. That value is not inherently anti-Christian.
On the other hand, Hitler's hatred of Jews was founded on racism; they were never God's people, and they never could be. All things Jewish, including Jesus of Nazareth, were inherently evil, and should be destroyed. (He thought that Jesus was a perversion of a non-Jewish, pre-existing notion of Christ.) That is inherently anti-Christian.
Well, if your definition of Christians is sufficiently narrow to exclude Martin Luther, then I'll concede you are also entitled to exclude the Nazis. On the other hand, you really ought to make it clear that you're using a definition at odds with common usage. I quickly checked several biographical sources; all had Luther listed as a Christian.
Further, as warped as it sounds, Luther's evil plans were not nearly as removed from Christianity as Hitler's. Luther believed Jewish leaders were wilfully leading their people to Hell. As barbaric and foolish as his premises and remedies were, they were based on a presumption that Jews could be saved, if the obstacles to their salvation were removed, and that ultimately, the Jews would be saved by Christ. That value is not inherently anti-Christian.
You'll have to appreciate, that as an atheist, I see no virtue at all in 'saving' Jews. Luther wanted to do bad things to Jews in pursuit of a deluded goal. Even Hitler, by Hitler's standards, had good intentions. That's why I don't give points for good intentions.
But thanks for the civil discussion; a rarity on this sort of thread.