i do not agree with hitler's methods, nor do i subscribe to any of his weird ideas.
but you overlook the main point - that
despite all of his rubbish, you would find few germans during his era that weren't believers in him. judging him as a
leader, is no doubt very different from judging him as a
person, and i think you mix up the two. you also seem to mix up
benevolent leaders with
good leaders.
take for example emperor qin shi huang. you won't call him benevolent, you certainly won't call him kind, and he certainly could be called ruthless, but he did a great deal of good (along with bad) by unifying china during those troubled times. '
back on hitler - perhaps he was a horrible military strategist, and more than certainly, his generals were the ones who won the battles, not him - still what does it matter? did you really think that the great conquerors were all brilliant strategists? you only need to look to the example of the three kingdoms to see that liu bei was hopeless in every aspect except that of winning people's hearts (and how he did that, i have no idea, theatrics, maybe).
that said, the world would be a very different place if hitler had actually won his mad plans - perhaps the equivalent of "you" today would be singing his praises and dragging various allied leaders' names through the mud.
the west's saying of "all's fair in love and war" seems pretty ridiculous, when you come to think of it - all that matters once a war is started, is never who gains or who loses more; it's about who wins it eventually; to deny that would be to be very naive, indeed.