According to Steven J Burton,Legal positivism is the study of science of law that is separate

and independent from morality and notions of ethics. Legal positivists separate the law from
morality and that there is  no link present between them. Also,the approach to define law
excludes value judgements and moral considerations.John Austin, a positivist Scholar, stated
that law existed as a separate entity from looking at its merits and demerits. The merit and
demerits of law bring out the morality aspect in  law which positivists like Austin, Hart
among others consider separate.  
The German School of Historical Law, paved the way to legal positivism whose hope was to
introduce a new positivist approach to law that would build a new legal system. The purpose
of the new legal system was to unify the politically fragmented nation of Germany. As a
result, the Nazi legal system was developed whose approach of ‘law is law’ was radical and
harsh.
In addition,there are a number of other factors which could be attributed to the legal
profession’s lack of resistance against Nazi authority.  As Müller contends that the
German legal profession’s inherent loyalty to state leadership found a feeling of
obligation to the Nazi government authority. It has also been suggested that a number
of German legal professionals, dissatisfied with liberalism at the time of the Nazi’s
rise to power, already supported them in different ways. As Kaufmann wrote, when
the National Socialists intruded upon basic rights, the only audible sound was
applause.
Aside from the fact that legal positivism was considered strict on the division of law
and morality, it permitted the German legal profession to reason to themselves and
others their interpretation and application of laws that they might have considered to
be harsh. Legal positivism might not have been the sole cause of Nazi legal system to
arise, the lack of resistance from the German legal profession to resist nonetheless is a
relevant cause.
Legal positivism insisted on the law being independent from its moral aspect. This
meant that the  legal scholars were not to be concerned with the right and wrong or
the good and bad aspects of law, but to clarify, conceptualize and explain the
authoritative nature of law. The lack of legal professions to inquire on the moral
aspect of law led to an easy capture of the Nazi legal system and its modification to
meet the evil Nazi goals. (kindly expound more on the atrocities)

In conclusion, legal positivism focuses on what the law ‘is’ to what the law ‘ought’ to
be hence has promoted the expulsion of morality aspect of law as good law or bad
law. This strict distinction not only saw the laws of the Nazi regime as valid but lead
to an unwillingness to enquire into the morality of law and an inherited self-
understanding that one’s own conscience or discretion should neither feature in the
understanding of law nor affect its outcome. The Nazi’s cruelty, upon donning the
vestures of statutes, rendered German justice helpless. Legal positivism not only
offered no theoretical legal resource for the German legal profession to resist Nazi
arbitrariness, but it may also have assisted in legitimizing Nazi rule.