I'm not sure it's a historian's place to agree with Hitler; it's a historian's place to document history as they see it to be true. Philosophers and politicians would be more qualified to agree with Hitler, if they were to, as it's a question of ethics and morals, really.
A key tenet of Facism is strength through war, in a kind of bizarre, quasi-darwinian way. Whether or not he intended such a massive war, he certainly intended a big war, and I don't really think anyone could reasonably deny this.
Im not necessarily asking for someone who believes Hitler was right but someone who believes his policies were the fault of someone else (eg Chamberlain and Appeasement).
try william carr, he agreed with taylor that hitler didn't want war in 1939. there's nothing on the internet on him but perhpas you may have a book of his at your school
One of my mates is related to David Irving, who got locked up in Poland for saying that the holocaust was exaggerated. Personally I think he's not worth listening to but you could use him.
Talking about his policies it depends whether you take the structuralist or intentionalist view of Hitler. Did he, as a dictator, dictate? Or was he responding to structures, circumstances and changes in Germany at the time? Another debate could be if they were his policies at all or not? Okay he had to authorise policies to have them formalised but the concept of the policies came from sycophants around him. Hitler didn't take much interest in government but had ideas of where he wanted to take Germany. It was up to his subordinates to take Germany there.
David Irving as some has said is good example. But i think now he has admitted that the holocaust did exist though. (or was forced to admit it maybe since he did get locked up in jail for not admitting it)