Carrier's analysis is less than convincing, especially his conclusion that "(Hitler) was unmistakably a god-fearing Christian."
I know you don't like his conclusion. The problem is, his facts are correct. I can scan in and post the German text from both sources, if you like, and you can compare it with what Carrier says and the English text.
I would not go so far as Carrier. I would say that Hitler was raised Catholic, and much of his thought reflected his early upbringing. He clearly thought he could remake Christianity in his own image - the man was a megalomaniac, after all - but he was constantly thinking about, and through the perspective of, Christianity. The more complete of the two German versions of the Führermonologe has 5 index entries for 'Darwinismus', and the references are so indirect I hardly recognize them. The name Darwin does not appear in the name index; nor does Haeckel or any other Darwinian I recognize. On the other hand, there are at least 30 references to Christianity, including discussions that span several pages. And some of the references are quite favorable. He discussed a personal God with every indication he believed God to be a real entity. This is my direct translation of a passage from the monologue of 27 February 1942.
Creation, or Providence, is surely eternal. Man's concept of it is thus very shaky. Why did God not give mankind the possibility of coming to a better picture of it? Looked at horizontally, educated people know today that Catholicism has no more than 10% of humanity behind it. Simultaneously, created men have thousands of various beliefs about the same Providence. However, we see the matter also vertically; we know that Christianity occupies only a short epoch of humanity.That's deviant, heretical Christianity, but Christianity it is, for sure!
God creates men. We became men because of mortal sin. God gave that to man as a precondition. He watched for 500,000 years while they bred pure. Then it occurred to him, to send his only begotten son. A terrible roundabout way, the whole enterprise colossally arduous!
So is it conceivable that a man who was allegedly inspired by Darwin never, in four years of rambling monologues, uttered Darwin's name once, even while he rambled endlessly about his peculiar ideas of God?