This is an extremely problematic question, and one which I would respond to with some words of caution. There is this occasional impulse to try and understand Hitler via "Well, what was he like aside from the bad stuff", and while this isn't to say that there was nothing he ever did which was divorced from his repugnant views, I would first direct you to /u/commiespaceinvader's wonderful exploration of the fascination with Hitler questions, but further, I would point to this thread, as an example of why something like this isn't straight forward. As both myself and /u/kieslowskifan address, the aspects of Nazism that might on the immediate face of things not seem to fit the stereotypes of 'evil Nazis' did far too often have something sinister once you got below the surface, as as Kies eloquently puts it, "The point of all of this is that one should never look at isolated examples of 'good' things at face value, especially when with regard to Hitler and the Nazis." Hitler's famous 'love of dogs' for instance connected to his need for control and absolute obeisance. German animal welfare laws might have seemed great in print, but as Kies notes "no Jews or those with Jewish blood could own a pet and would have to euthanize theirs", which hardly supports an entirely altruistic motive behind laws protecting animals. "Good" and "Evil" don't exist within a vacuum, and to appreciate those qualities requires an understanding of the greater context in which they exist.