The 12/23/2016 Straight Dope discusses the question “was Martin Luther responsible for the Holocaust?” I don’t disagree with anything said in that column, but one thing not mentioned is that the majority of Germans in the 1930s (and still today, I think) were Roman Catholics, in other words, not otherwise inclined to accept Lutheran theology. Except, I guess, when it was convenient to do so.
And, if I recall aright, the minority of Roman Catholics that were to be found in Germany were concentrated in Bavaria and a few other states.
Here’s a religious map of Germany as of 1930.
http://www.historyonmaps.com/BWSamples/Religions.html
and here’s the vote percentages for the Nazis in the 1932 election.
Interesting, the strongest support (at least in the first election) seems to be in Mecklenburg-Schwerin area. I would have thought the areas around Berlin or Nuremberg to be the Nazis’ greatest strongholds. Perhaps they had a particularly active Gauleiter up there.
Just want to add a little historical background … remember that “Germany” as a nation is only 150 years old … before this territory was a collection of lil’ Principalities within a loose “confederacy” known as the Holy Roman Empire … each Principality was free to choose which religion would be practiced within their borders which gives us a “checker board” of Protestant and Catholic areas … here’s an interesting lecture “Religion, State and Society in Germany and France” that touches upon this a bit …
I’m surprised no one has brought up Sir Charles Darwin here … this is one of the very best examples of how a wonderfully useful scientific discipline can be used for an amazing amount of good … and an amazing amount of evil … whatever else can be said of Evolution, it makes for a particularly horrific social policy …
Berlin was urban, working class, and fairly notoriously anti-Nazi. Bavaria also was not the strongest Nazi stronghold, even though the party had its roots there. The Nazis did best in rural Protestant areas, where they painted themselves as the defenders of the German farm worker. But Friedrich Hildebrandt, the Gauleiter of Mecklenburg, was popular in the area.
Evolution doesn’t make for social policy at all. The name has been attached to a horrific social policy, but with no real justification, and the social policy would be just as horrific no matter what name was unjustly attached to it.
As a matter of history, like it or not, rightly or wrongly, Darwinism and Social Darwinism are connected.
“Social Darwinism” had nothing to do with Darwin, and was a gross misappropriation of his work.
On the other hand, Luther undoubtedly was a virulent anti-Semite.
The point is that, misappropriation though it undoubtedly be, it bears Darwin’s name, thus the connection.
You have missed the point. 
Wikipedia: “Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest.””
The idea that humans compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest” is fundamental to Darwin and Huxley’s darwinism.
On the other hand, if we define Social Darwinism == Darwinism, the new term doesn’t have any new meaning. So let’s develop a second meaning, more like the Richard Dawkins “meme” idea:
“Social Darwinisim, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that societies, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence…”
But that’s not an insult, it’s not normally considered a /distinctive/ marker of NAZI, socialist, or fascist ideologies.
I could go on, but the fact is that the term “social darwinism” has no defined meaning, and never has.
But of course Darwinism was a factor contributing to “fascism” and the holocaust. Tagging the lable “social darwinism” on it doesn’t change that one way or the other.
But “Social Darwinism” hugely distorts what “fittest” means in Darwinism. Fitness in Darwinian evolution means being successful at getting your genes into the next generation, by reproducing or otherwise; not being rich, smart, wealthy or anything else. It doesn’t even mean personal survival; just survival of the genes.
The fly that produces a dozen offspring is fitter than the billionaire human who has no children.
Also, the very phrase “survival of the fittest” did not originate with Darwin (writings on biology), but with Herbert Spencer (writings on sociology). Being a pithy turn of phrase Darwin saw it fit 
to use in later editions of On the Origin of Species and it was popularized in that later context.
Wikipedia: "Darwin, unlike Hobbes, believed that this struggle for natural resources allowed individuals with certain physical and mental traits to succeed more frequently than others, and that these traits accumulated in the population over time, which under certain conditions could lead to the descendants being so different that they would be defined as a new species.
However, Darwin felt that “social instincts” such as “sympathy” and “moral sentiments” also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man:
"The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable—namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them."
See also:
Half truths are whole lies and the article is a great example of that.
Fistly it blatantly skips 3 centuries of anti Jewish writings.
It is trying to divert blame away from those who used Hitler the rejected artist as a tool to wrest away the dominance of the Jews in finances and at the same time destroy atheism.
There is not even a hint at the institution that stood to benefit most!
It seems that no one wonders how Luther got his ideas from his roman catholic training either.
It is rewriting of history. If one realy likes finger pointing ask;
Who stole the chocolate? Well; who are still wiping their faces?
i do have no idea, but Stalin as well as Hitler did have one.
Cleanup on this aisle, please.