Bill, I don't know where you get the idea that those countries were undefended. The German attacks in the West in 1940 could very well have failed, because:

They were outnumbered in fighting men.

They were outnumbered in tanks, and they were facing some markedly superior French and British tanks in 1940, as a matter of fact. The French Char 1 and the Somue were considerably tougher than the German Mark III and Mark IV tanks of the time. The British Matilda tank was also virtually impenetrable to the German tanks and anti-tank guns (only the 88MM Flak gun could knock it out).

The only area the Germans were superior in was the Luftwaffe, which somewhat outnumbered its Allied opposition over France, but was way better organized. Their tanks and troops generally were also way better organized.

Hitler had the good fortune to have some very innovative thinkers like Heinz Guderian on the General staff, and a very well-trained and highly motivated young army.

"blows it completely once he meets resistance from the allies"

Say what??? They won a lot of battles on both fronts against extremely resolute Allied resistance....and against greatly superior numbers of men and better equipment. When they invaded Russia in '41 they were grossly outnumbered in tanks and aircraft both, and the Russian tanks were far superior to the German tanks, but they still won astounding victories. It was the vicious Russian weather and the sheer size of the country that finally bogged them down short of Moscow (and this is in no way to downgrade the magnificent courage of the Russian troops, but the German troops showed equally magnificent courage).

Anyway, you are quite wrong to suggest that they failed as soon as they met significant Allied resistance. Not even close. They failed when they were overwhelmed by a flood of Allied men and equipment, because they were asked to do the impossible. Anyone on Earth would have failed, given the numbers, given the overwhelming odds they took on from the time they invaded Russia.

But all that's a side issue. Hitler was an enormously successful politician. Period. There's no line of argument you can come up with that will prove he wasn't. He was wrong, absolutely wrong...but he was successful up until late 1942. And why? Because he apparently had the ability to inspire most Germans at the time. That's about all any politician needs to be successful at the game of politics.

I can see you get some kind of personal satisfaction from denying that Hitler could possibly have had ANY kind of intelligence or ability at all...but why would you need to do that?

If he is your chosen "enemy", your ultimate symbol of evil, and I assume he is...what triumph would there be, Bill, in defeating an enemy who had absolutely nothing going for him? Wouldn't it be like beating up a mentally retarded person who doesn't even know how to fight? And why give anyone a medal for it then? Why call anyone a hero? What would be the big deal about winning that war....if Hitler was, as you say, completely lacking in any ability of any kind?

I should think it would mean a lot more to the winners of WWII if they had the honesty to admit that, "Hey, those Germans were a tough outfit, they fought like hell, they believed in what they were fighting for, and winning that war aganst them was no cakewalk."

And that's the truth. My father was there, driving a British tank, he fought against them, and it was no cakewalk. (He hated Hitler at least as much as you do...maybe more.)

You should not underestimate your enemies, Bill, just because you don't like them. It's unwise to underestimate your enemies.