The Nazi Party was based on pragmatism, not ideological purity.

[JVS]

Whenever I am doing work that involves fascism, one of the annoyances is that of establishing what fascist doctrine is. Especially difficult is the establishment of what German fascism, or Nazi-ism is, ideologically speaking. This is further complicated by the fact that in the post WWII environment, even remaining fascist regimes such a Franco's decided to remain largely silent on the issue. The best source of information on fascist ideology comes from the Italians, who having been under fascism for a longer period, had managed to flesh out some theoretical underpinnings. To this day, I would advise anyone who wanted to know what fascism was about to consult the works of Mario Palmieri and Alfredo Rocco. They are a good place to find the ideology explained in from the perspective of its proponents, which I believe is essential for trying to grasp an understanding of any ideology. For the Nazis this is much more difficult, and this is not only because they were in power for a shorter period of time. One of the reasons that philosophical underpinnings do not exist is because the party leadership (i.e Hitler) actively sought to stifle the development of a political philosophy. In fact, if one reads about the Bamberg Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamberg_Conference , one sees the promotion of a pragmatic principle called the Führerprinzip, an exercise of pure party discipline with no regard for ideology, over ideological squabbling promoted by ideologues in the Northern part of Germany. From this article,

"Soon after Hitler was banned from public speaking in Bavaria on 9 March 1925,<7> he appointed Gregor Strasser to develop the party in the north. Strasser, a hard-working and gregarious pharmacist of forceful personality who read Homer in the original for relaxation, had exceptional organizational talents and dramatically increased the number of Nazi cells within the north.
Strasser was more idealistic than Hitler and took the notion of "socialist" in the party name with some degree of seriousness. The Communists were a larger factor in the more industrialized north, and Strasser was sensitive to the appeal that "socialism" had to those dissatisfied workers who were tempted by the red flag.<8> He also apparently felt that the Munich clique was ruled by lesser men, and he chafed under their leadership in Hitler's absence.
Strasser was more radical than Hitler on the issue of adherence to the "legal and constitutional" method of obtaining political power through the Weimar Constitution's electoral processes. He had been the SA leader in Lower Bavaria before the Beer Hall Putsch and was not convinced that Hitler's repudiation of force, violence and putsch as a path to political power was correct.
Most serious, perhaps, was the attitude of the northern faction to the party's Twenty-Five Point Programme, which indisputably was intellectually confused and often half-baked. Considering the circumstances in which it was written, it is hard to imagine that it could be otherwise. To Strasser and Goebbels, men with intellectual and ideological bents, warped as those were by scandalous anti-Semitism, the absence of intellectual rigor was a serious defect."

Now before we have people pipe up that there was nothing socialist about the NSDAP, I would point out that if you simplify Socialism to the view that society's fundamental division is economic class and history is the struggle of those classes, one could replace class with ethnicity and have a pretty accurate view of fascist sociology and historiography. Anyway, the northerners wanted something a bit more meaty on the ideological level. Hitler's response was to make clear to them that the party was his, he had control, and he expected complete obedience from each party member to his superiors. Is this really ideological purity? No. Instead it is a pragmatic exertion of party discipline to ensure that the party function as efficiently as possible and not get bogged down in issues of ideology. Such made the party easily wieldable in Hitler's hands so that whenever circumstances required a compromise on a position or with a group outside of the party, his hands were free to make it. By placing total authority with the leader, the leader is no longer bound to follow principles of the party when they prove inconvenient.