Was Hitler objectively bad?

[Rev. Rye]

For certain that once the US and Russia were involved Germany was never going to win.

But even if Hitler had been assassinated, if Himmler et al had taken over the very nature of the Nazi party would not have allowed them to relinquish direction of the war.

Look at the people you're talking about, Goering was a dilettante who spent most of his time at Karinhall playing with his toy trains, Himmler when he did try to play at soldier(when he was appointed commander of army group Vistula in "45) proved to be a complete incompetent and Bormann preferred to stay behind the throne.

But even if if the Army had have been allowed to run the war if would not have mattered, the Second world war was a war of production and Germany was never going to beat America or Russia in that game.

Now that's an answer! My guess is that Bormann would probably be, by far, the most competent of the three, but, then again, what if Hitler was assassinated and Heydrich was still around? The man was violently insane, but his record with Bohemia and Moravia showed him to be far more competent that Hitler (disturbingly, the resistance movements there were all but finished with Heydrich's appointment), masterminded the Holocaust, and even looked the part of the Aryan ideal. Of course, getting Russia and America into the war totally boned Germany's chances of victory, at least until they had completely conquered Europe, but if the leaders were competent, they wouldn't have tried to piss off the largest countries on Earth until their military was comparably strong.
Yes, historical speculation is meaningless, but it can be fun.