There is no reliable historian who views Hitler as good in any way. There is just no way to justify this. The mistake may be the assumption bad persons can only do bad things, but common daily experience should already teach one otherwise. Still, it is a common theme in most revisionist takes on viewing the history of Nazi Germany. There are several angles this takes, some extol family virtues, the virtues of having a strong community (the Volksgemeinschaft), Hitler having saved the economy, or having abolished the terms of the Versailles treaty perceived as so harsh and unjust by many Germans, or having built the Autobahns and saved millions from unemployment et c, to claim that 'if not for the 'thing' with the Jews/the War/if he had been assassinated in 1937' he would have gone down as one of Germany's greatest leader.

There are several mistakes these people tend to make. Some of them are factual, like the myth that Hitler started building the Autobahns (he did not, the first true Autobahn, the modern A 555, was built 1929-1932), but the more grave error made is trying to separate the complex into the spheres of atrocities here, and good things there. They are not separable. This bears stressing, because the atrocities were what lay at the very heart of the National Socialist ideology and its aims (as clearly expressed in Mein Kampf). 'Rassenlehre' or race theory was one of the core principles of it. For the National Socialist, the permanent fight between the various and different (not only in appearance, but also in ability and 'worthiness') races was one of the constants and defining elements of the world; and one of the elements defining NS policy. Atrocities, against his own citizens and those of foreign nations, were part of Hitlers policies, they were so from the beginning. People were murdered in early, 'wild' KZs from the beginning. German jews were ill-treated from the beginning, and finally murdered. Under his leadership, a large number of citizens of his own country were mistreated and murdered, the mentally ill, those considered antisocial, the Sinti, the Roma, the gay, the communists, the dissenters. How can anything weigh up a leader treating his subjects that way? But that's beside the point, the point is that it was always going to happen, there was no National Socialist policy without it. And that includes war. War was always part of the plan, the struggle for Lebensraum or living space. The army, the society and the economy were geared towards war of conquest from the beginning. All the 'good things' happening in Germany between 1933-1939 have to be judged against this, that they were the prelude to a massive war of conquest and genocidal annihilation that set all of Europe ablaze.

As for the factual, the mistake made here again is the assumption that those particular issues people view as 'good' cannot be viewed isolated, but have to be seen in the greater cotext of NS policy, as f.e. /u/kieslowskifan does here on the topic of the Nazi environmental policies. Mutatis mutandis this is true for other aspects of society. Economically, any way you look at it, his decisions were not good for the German economy. At the end of the war, Germany and its economy were thorougly ruined, most major factories in ashes, and those left standing were dismantled and taken to the Soviet Union or other countries as reparations. The pre-war economic boom was entirely unsustainable, financed by banking tricks and massive deficit spending, and put Germany on a track that could only lead to economic collapse or to war, a war that could only end ruinous. Conquest was required to not have the whole system come crashing down. Diplomatically, Germany's actions made it become increasingly isolated until it was fighting a war against almost the whole rest of the world, left by almost all of its allies one after the other. As a leader, Hitler created an inefficient system of government with an unclear and sometimes chaotic web of responsibilities leading to endemic infighting that seriously hampered Germanys war effort, his sometimes insane micromanaging and megalomaniacal attidudes combined with his unshakeable trust in his infallibility made him a bad war leader as well.

No. He was not a good leader. He had millions of his own citizens murdered and led millions more into their deaths, had millions more of foreign citizens murdered, left the economy of his country non-existant at the end of his reign, with his country in ruins, his capital besieged, his armies beaten, deserted by (almost) all former allies, and had to resort to blowing his brains out just not to be tried as the greatest criminal mankind had ever seen, cursing the people he had led in his last days. His policies almost inevitably led to this, or a similar, end.

To add to /u/astrogator's fine comment, it bears stressing that the apparently non-controversial economic, military and diplomatic achievements of his early reign can almost all be credited to someone else or some other party. Things ran well when the various bureaucracies were run by professionals, and the period of ruinous mismanagement is also the period of most intense nazification. Apart from the autobahn, the modernization of the German military had been accomplished by Von Seeckt and his young followers in the 20's; the housing and infrastructure projects had all been planned by Heinrich Bruning and previous administrations; and the diplomacy of fellow-traveling Von Neurath, and then the sycophantic, non-entity Ribbentrop, were amateurish compared to the peaceful statesmanship of Gustav Streseman, which had moved Germany towards great power status and the end of Versailles - for which Hitler also took credit - without bluster and sabre-rattling. All Hitler did in comparison was bluff and bluster. He only succeeded because the hard work of rebuilding Germany when it was in a position of weakness had been done by others.

Well, that was a great read.

I only have one more question, and this is coming from me personally. Would you say that someone like Napoleon was also tyrannical and in the same vein as Hitler (ex: power-hungry dictator), or do you view him as more of a traditional ruler with aggressive expansionist goals?

I ask because I'm trying to differentiate in my head what makes a leader like Napoleon, one of my favorite historical figures, different from a leader like Hitler, besides the racially motivated genocide.