Not a hoax, unless the new york times circa the early 1900's was worthless and some highly intelligent person has decided to give up his rights to his work so that he can say that Sidis wrote them.
I have no doubt Sidis existed, or that he was a terrific prodigy. I'm not disputing his putative IQ score.
I do think it is pure fantasy to ascribe 200 languages to him. Maybe he could say hello in 200 languages - but knowing 200, and being able to learn a new language within 24 hours - no - don't believe it. Total recall of everything he read? No, I think that's clearly ficticious.
I believe he was able to do some of the things on your list, but not all of them, and the fact that the last point seems to suggest that two fictional characters wrote, or were used as references for, the list:
Again, refer Sam Rosenberg's conjectures. Perhaps there is even more than Sam decrypted. Billy: quanton (Hyde, Jekyll).
Makes me think someone might be having a bit of a laugh here.
Brilliant, yes, superhuman, no.
As for the Nazis, yes I am sure some of them were very adroit and mentally agile - as you say a bit of intelligence is needed to organise armies and societies, and I don't think immorality need be associated with stupidity.
However, I still think that simply ascribing high IQ scores to top Nazis is a little bit dodgy unless you can actually back it up with some facts about how that intelligence was gathered.
And as I've pointed out, the story Alan provides about how the scores were collected is clearly absolute rubbish - Hitler being dead at the time and so on...
I mean, if someone came up to you in the street and said "clever bunch those top Nazis, all of them had high IQ scores" and you said "how do you know that" and he said "they all took IQ tests shortly before being tried and executed for warcrimes" would you not reckon they were a bit crackers?
BUT Hitler was useless, he did not know anything about strategic interests in war or how it is more important to know when to retreat rather than when to advance.He had might on his side and commanders second to none, but military intelligence, absolutely zero.
The soviets ultimately proved mightier, and won through sledgehammer tactics. This is despite the fact that the initial size of the Red army and the superiority of their tanks meant that, had he adopted blitzkreig Stalin could have given his enemies a thorough drubbing. Had Stalin not purged the Red Army of officers in the lead up to war he might have easily beaten back Hitler. If anyone benefitted from might (in terms of manpower, territory, war machines and style) it was Stalin.
Hitler did make some blunders, such as forcing Rommel to commit suicide, or helping Mussolini conquer Yugoslavia in favour to a summer offensive against the USSR.
However, compared to the blunders committed by the British, French, China, US and USSR during their various wartime debuts - Hitler fought a very efficient and innovative set of campaigns. The allies actually tended to screw up until they learned to fight like the Germans.
So I don't think saying he was a military idiot is justified. In the end he proved overconfident and wasteful - probably as a consequence of nervous infirmity and the fact that he had turned his sociopathy on to his own people.