Actually, I do not think Hitler was an ineffective leader - I am rather neutral on the subject. He had positive qualities in terms of leadership; he was able to inspire people to action and very effectively organized structures for children to participate in. His economic policies were better than those under the government before him, and ultimately Hitler did bring Germany out of a horrific economic crisis.

The ineffective sides do not far outweigh his effectiveness in certain areas, though. As a military leader he was abysmal, and as time passed he listened less and less to advisers who were clearly much smarter than he was. His long-term economic policy was questionable; it relied far too much on conquest and not internal improvement, and his unwillingness to support promising new technology is precisely why Germany lost the war (Germany could have realistically had a Jet Fighter by 1941, but Hitler wasn't impressed and wanted it to be a ground-attack plane.) He concentrated too much effort in to super weapons and was not very realistic; by the end of his regime Hitler was taking his own rhetoric far too seriously.

This is speaking separately from his morals, and simply examining Hitler as a leader. One does not rise to a position of power without at least some credit, and I think the portrayal of Hitler as ineffective and crazy is very detrimental to understanding him and his rise to power. Its very easy to look at someone you think is crazy and go "ha, I would never fall for that," all the while falling for very similar rhetoric from current politicians.

The reason you need to have Hitler separated from the Holocaust when speaking about his leadership qualities is because people tend to have a hard time getting passed the Holocaust bit. While this is understandable, it doesn't add anything to historical discussions. Yes its a horrific event, but this has been established numerous times and saying how terrible he was from a moral point of view blurs the rest of the pictures.

Regarding his admiration in the subcontinents, I don't think I can really comment on whether or not they are any more naive of our culture than we are of theirs. Hating Hitler is a Western view, and for good reason; he was the catalyst of the single most devastating war in human history and committed atrocities exceeded only by two other human beings (Stalin and Mao).

But we come from a relatively sparsely populated part of the globe that places large value on human life. We do not value cultural unity as much as other groups around the world might, because the West hasn't really been subject to colonialism. I can't say for certain, but I do not think its unreasonable that groups in India might value culture unity, i.e. an India for Hindus and kill the Muslims because they had been a colony of a totally different culture for so long.

The national pride which says "we want to be free of colonialism" can very quickly turn to "we want to be free of this group which is different than we are." But again, I am being purely hypothetical; I do not know India enough as a country to make a concrete statement on it.