Hegel's new propositions

This week we read and excerpt from Hegel's work on dialectics. From what I understand, his dialectic approach regards two logically opposite opinions as "thesis" and "antithesis", and believes that through negating them by forming a sort of "synthesis" through sublimation we can achieve true/full knowledge. The question that repeatedly was raised demanded how a "synthesis" containing elements of the antithesis of each opinion can be formed without being an antithesis of them. 

I'm still struggling with this concept as well. In addition, how is this knowledge to be applied to the real world? We've just finished discussing Kant's belief in moral absolutes, so does Hegel's opinion disagree with Kant's in stating that there actually is a moral middle ground ( the example brought up in class: war is always wrong, war is always right)? I believe Kant would say that we can't will that war be acceptable for all free and rational beings. Hegel, however, looks for the compromise on ideas such as these. It seems to me that Hegel is focused much more on what role our actions play in the real world than in a theoretical world of rational beings. Do you disagree? 

Also, in synthesizing any two opposite opinions into a synthesis, how does this lead to, ultimately, an all-knowing being? Hegel believes the the world is either irrational or rational based on how we looks at it, and if it appears irrational then we're not looking at it correctly. It seems as if he's saying that the world is naturally rational and that we need to tailor our opinions and beliefs to this natural rationality. This is one of of the most confusing stances I've ever come across. Is the rationality of the world really as subjective as he claims? After much thought, I think I agree with this statement because I think it mimics Kant's assumption that there are objectively moral laws inherent in the world that a rational being will be compelled to follow. Perhaps this is Hegel's point in his belief in "synthesis": that if we, as rational free beings, observe universally moral laws, then this proves that a free being that sees an irrational world is himself irrational. The "synthesis" allows a potentially irrational being to arrive at the rational. This still leaves me with the question of whether or not all thesis and antithesis should be synthesized in some way or if sometimes there is no rational synthesis. What do you think? Sorry if I'm not making any sense, this is a rough reading.