Was Hitler the best Economic leader During World War 2

Many thanks to my partner here for raising this issue. There are a number of humans for whom hatred is not only allowed, but encouraged. There are not many such people, and we deeply cherish those that we have even a passing access to. I say that we "cherish" these people, because we have what I regard as a human need to sharpen our claws from time to time – unleash our anger at the copy machine or garage door upon some caricature of demonic humanity. Foremost among these persons is the skinny man with the big hat from Germany. (First Austria, yes, but we know him from Germany, so.) I feel, as a devout liberal, a profound reluctance to dislodge Hitler from my personal pantheon of world villains, and so I must answer even the most minor of compliments directed toward the German “Leader." For example, Hitler did not “take a stroll” in the afternoons, Hitler, “stomped all over the grass like he owned the place, the bastard.” In this discussion, it must remain possible to be “persuadable.” For example, I am forced to admit that, despite Hitler, the German warmachine was superior to that fielded by Poland during “Operation Fall Weiss,” or the Conquest of Poland in September of 1939. This is simply because I am forced to admit that this particular statement of fact is “true,” or I should lose credibility. In this discussion, it has been asserted that Hitler may have been “the best economic leader during WW2.” An obviously absurd statement, that lies in direct opposition to everything that I personally have heard regarding the subject. After all, as a direct result of Hitler’s personal policies, some two to three million ethnic Germans were slaughtered. This figure goes as high as perhaps seven million if one is unpolite enough to include all the unwilling persons annexed into the German state against their wishes – and who were subsequently killed. I feel that it could be argued that causing the death of two, to seven million productive members of the economy is unsound economic policy. This obvious fact aside, in order to make a claim that obviously contradicts such well known world history, the BoP absolutely must be held by my partner. We have not just 'no evidence' to support his claim, but we actually have negative evidence that does not even require sourcing – Germany was a smoking ruin directly as a result of Uncle Adolf. This is such an obvious statement of reality that I am not even certain which “expert” to use as a reference. Therefore, I will insist that the BoP be placed upon Pro in this case. In order to demonstrate that “Hitler was the best economic leader during WW2” the following necessary conditions must be met: 1. Hitler’s economic policies must have produced an economy that outperformed all other economies throughout the duration of WW2. Clearly, this condition cannot be met: the United States actually rescued the Western German economy in 1945. 2. Hitler must have been himself personally responsible for the decisions that led to the German economy outperforming all other economies throughout the duration of the war. A difficult burden to argue, since Hitler was so famously lazy and ignorant of any economic matter. 3. The economic policies that Hitler personally designed, and which supposedly led the German economy to outperform all other economies during the war, would have had to have been continued after his death, and must have been adopted by other nations as well. This assertion is key: these policies, if they were such a resounding success, would have become emulated “economic principles” that could have been adapted by other economies and systems. I maintain that if Hitler’s economic theories had been more successful than those of every other nation, then we would today be arguing the merits of “Hitlerian Economics” along with Keynesian Economics, Supply Side Economics, and so on. Even if it could be argued that hatred of Hitler would have disallowed this, we would have had his policies adapted under a different name. For example, we “continued” several German programs in the United States, most notably the work done by our atomic scientists and our Interstate Highway system. It is common knowledge that these programs were made possible by German expatriates, who fled Hitler’s regime. I point out that there are no Nazi German economic theorists whose work was continued on a widespread basis after Hitler’s death. For this last point to be demonstrated, there is a requirement that slave labor and industrialized mass murder be utilized in the “Hitlerian Economy;” otherwise the resemblance to Hitler’s economic policies will not be accurate. These are, again, necessary conditions for demonstrating that Hitler was supreme among economists. There is evidence that he was not, however. Among these evidences are: 1. Hitler’s Germany was a smoking ruin by 1945. It's economy, like it's storefronts, were a shambles. I am concerned that my list should be longer. I will extend it should my partner’s evidence somehow neutralize this point. At which juncture I shall discuss the fact that Germany's unemployment was erased by Hitler's decision to illegalize work for over half of the German population. After simply making it illegal for millions of women and Jews to work - there was no point including them among the "unemployed." Hitler’s economic successes were nothing more than exceedingly temporary and illusory. Hitler’s policies led his economy – and the rest of the world, into war and ruin in just twelve short years. I therefore feel safe in stating – unequivocally – that these policies were worse than those of at least one other nation during WW2. Perhaps the three nations with functioning economies in 1945 could be considered candidates for this designation.