I do not expect to convince you,
@Augustus .
Plenty of people have been attempting to settle this question for decades already, and I am not nearly formidable enough to do it now. Clearly and unavoidably, this is a very emotionally loaded subject matter.
That said, I do not find your objections particularly strong, either.
Yet he persecuted the Church, considered Christianity to be the root cause of a slave morality that weakened the will and was a danger to the ideology of German supremacism, surrounded himself disproportionately with occultists, the irreligious and anti-theists, implemented policies to marginalise Christianity, left Christian iconography and symbolism out of Nazi Party rallies, expressed contempt for Christianity to his closest henchmen, spoke of the necessity to phase out Christianity over time and promoted an ideology and political vision in which all of the above make perfect sense due to its militaristic and totalitarian nature.
I am not aware of what evidence you have for those claims, but I do know that there is a lot of precedent for similar squabbles internally in Christian environments, as perhaps best evidenced by the Fourth Crusade.
For all its professed love for peace, Christianity has a remarkable degree of ability to nurture strife and conflict, even internal conflict - as one would expect from such a strongly theocentric doctrine.
Hitler seems to have taken inspiration for his version of the Swastika from his time as a student at Lambach's monastery school. Clearly, he thought of himself as exceptionally wise and not bound by other people's authority - which, again, is the mark of a theistic, specifically Abrahamic delusion.
His conflicted feelings would of course express themselves in litigious manners, as they apparently always did. His refusal to trust or defer to Christian authority is obvious, but I don't think that it indicates in the slightest that he did not consider himself a Christian himself.
That is in fact unremarkable. There seems to never have been any shortage of people who consider themselves Christians but do not generally trust priests or churches. They are certainly numerous at the current time.
Christianity itself has hardly any claim of being inherently incompatible with totalitarian or nationalistic militarism and strife either, if history is any indication. It was often associated with bloody wars before Hitler, and it remains so after Hitler.
How do you square these as being the actions of a man who was 'clearly a Christian'?
Assuming these are true, no reason to identify them as being evidence of him being specifically Christian.
There is certainly a good case that he believed in some form of Providence, although little else theistic in nature. A form of 'Providential deism' would be far more plausible than Christianity given his expressed beliefs, politics and actions.
That is a matter of interpretation, I suppose, but I stand unconvinced.
Deism is so at odds with Messianic attitudes that I don't think there is even a word for it, nor any other speculative examples come to mind.
Very consistently, it is the Abrahamic doctrines that fuel such delusions of grandeur.