Look up benevolent, and its synonyms; see how many of those Hitler generally fit the bill.

You're stuck on a few simple words but not seeing the whole picture. You must not lazily accept the view of masses and seek out the facts yourself. You may learn something.

A few simple words happen to be the criteria on which they are to base their paper so I wouldn't say it's the commenter missing the big picture.

bluefrootloops - It looks to me like you are implying that Hitler may not have been such a bad guy (as "the masses" believe) and was actually benevolent. If that is that case, please message me so I can give you about 6 million reasons why I vehemently disagree with you.

The point of an essay is to present a contention and support it with relevant arguments and evidence. Political correctness has nothing to do with it. If you can prove (with specific examples and explanation) that Hitler had good qualities, you will not fail. It all comes down to interpretation and delivery. Having said this, I'd still assume that OP's students did not understand the whole question.

If you were looking at it from a point of view of an aryan German at the time, then the essay could be plausible.

Social darwinism was a pretty popular theory at the time, so I doubt it took much to convince a country full of people who felt wronged by the rest of the world (since they were held accountable for all losses and damages sustained during WW1) that they should rise above the humiliation and claim their rightful place in the world as the master race. Additionally, after he initially gained enough favor from the public to get elected, he soon dismantled the whole German democracy. Once that man was in place, there was no one to really stop him from getting what he wanted. Everyone who disagreed was sent to the concentration camps with the rest of the inferior people, so the actual 'following' was mandatory, not based on belief alone. He didn't NEED to be a good leader since he was the leader of a dictatorship.

Also the indoctrination of the young, which meant there would be no resistance from the younger citizens. I mean children told on their parents and neighbours!

Strongest leaders don't end up shot and burned in the fires of their empires starting a war he could not win in the long run. Strongest leaders die in glory and wealth while their enemies crumbled.

Hitler wasn't benevolent. Trying to commit genocide makes him pretty malevolent.

And actually succeeding at committing genocide doesn't help his case either.