Interesting link to the article of Loganathan, Steed.
Leadership requires taking in lessons from the past and applying then for to future of a country.
The whole attack on the Sovjet Union was certainly proof of Hitlers complete lack of strategic leadership. Hitler got
more raw materials per month during the Molotov - Von Ribbentrob Treaty then after conquering large parts of the Sovjet Union (at higher expenses). So he was basically fighting for and losing stuff he already got without a fight.
Furthermore he started this ideology-inspired fight knowing - but neglecting - that behind his back Britain was far from beaten and political and material support in the States for Britain was growing.
All this less then 25 years after Germany had lost a devastating two front war.
A. Hitler must have been a Braniack.
The deeper answer to the topic question is more philosophical. It's a question of political systems, i.e. tyranny versus democracy to prevent anarchy, the classic Greek way.
While a dictator may provide strong leadership his total power contains the seeds for his downfall. Dictators tend to become over-self confident, which makes them vulnerable for making mistakes. But who stops a dictator from making mistakes. Dictatorship doesn't provide for that scenario. That's why tyrannies often end in anarchy.
Enters democracy with it's checks and balances...
Democracy is the long term winner. Anytime, anywhere.