Is a man who kills himself for nothing more immoral than Hitler?

To restate the question:

Is it more immoral to kill yourself for no good reason than to stay alive after killing 6,000,000 other people for no good reason?

God, no!

This question implies that Objectivism might turn a blind eye toward mass murder as long as the culprit stays alive. The implication is deeply mistaken -- even offensive.

The standard of morality is not whether you have a pulse. "Man's life qua man" is the standard, and the man who kills only himself is far more moral (and human) than a mass murderer, especially if the mass murderer keeps his pulse.

For the mass murderer to kill himself would be an act of justice. It would be the one thing he could be morally praised for.

I would advise the questioner to do more study on the meaning of the phrase "man's life qua man." To someone who understands this phrase, the question would never, ever come up.

Is it better to spend your last days under excruciating torture with no more values to achieve, or to end your life before that happens? That's the same dilemma faced by an evil dictator like Hitler or Stalin. Their lives are no longer the lives of man as a man, their choices led them to try to survive like a beast, and while their physical bodies are still alive, they are already dead spiritually. If a dictator is evil and he knows it, he has to live with the knowledge that he does not deserve to live, what would that do to a man? If a dictator is evil and he does not know it, he has to be completely disconnected from reality to avoid that knowledge, and what would that do to a man? Neither of those positions could ever lead to happiness, the moral purpose of a man's life. In contrast, the man who decides to end his life for no reason did not have to endure the subhuman torture of trying to live like a beast. Because of that, I would argue that the man who kills himself for no reason is nowhere near as immoral as the evil dictator.