>He famously forced his generals to compete AGAINST each other instead of working together.
Forcing people to compete is a good way to create a selection process for the better and more trustworthy person. No idea if he did this, especially during war, but it can be justified. Hell, democracy is parties competing against each other instead of working together. Inside of parties, politicians compete, also.
>He ordered bombing of civilian targets instead of military assets when angered, not realising he was simply making his opponents angrier, not weaker.
He ordered bombing of civilians very very late, after continued civilian bombing done by the UK. It's a very valid demoralization technique, although a very shitty thing to do.
>He wasted vast resources on pointless vanity projects like absurdly huge tanks or unnecessary Greek inspired infrastructure.
If he was so wasteful, then how come the nation that had just lost a war and was crippled by the treaty of versailles was able to fight on two fronts for such a long time, while revolutionizing war technology? His generals' strategies can be as good as they want, but if you don't have resources, you lose.
>He attacked Russia IN WINTER.
It's not like you can choose something like that. Tensions rise and someone has to deal the first strike. He could have played it on the defense, but he wanted to get it over with as fast as possible, or risk tiring against an army much larger in numbers.
>When he seized enemy territory he terrorised them instead of trying to win them over.
By saving them from starvation under their previous communist rule? The average person did not have a good life in the soviet union and it's satellite states. He also let the british soldiers escape after taking over france.
Not to mention the dozen peace offers before and during the war, even while having completely obliterated poland and france and being the apparent winner.