He should really resign because of this.

/facepalm
if this is not irony, I will second that
not really. Actually it was one medal, the other was a merit. And, no- he didn't wear his uniform as a civilian. on the 4th of February 1938 he became the head of OKW so in my understanding he was not a civilian any more. Besides, as far as I remember, he wore that popular green-gray jacket only after 1.09.1939 so during the war. Can't give you an exact credit for the last information-somewhere in J. Fest's biography.
Coming back to gas, blindness and all that stuff. Let's gather all the facts:
1.he was under attack and a gas was used (confirmed in the letter)
2.he became blind.(confirmed)
3.he had no medical education/knowledge
4.how the heck could he know that he became blind as the result of of some mental attack caused by the gas instead of the gas itself?
without medical files from Pasewalk (Polish Paslek) you can speculate as much as you want, and similar letters will only strengthen such confabulations.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...N5XheRK_muYaGA


Next time i try to be more serious when approaching this major controversial subject of Hitler blindness.:yawn:

Serious business....

Looks like he's 'resigned' to his fate :03:

If you would have read the article, you would have seen that the claim is being made by someone who did see the original medical file at Pasewalk.

I'd imagine that you'd find your answer by looking up the effects of mustard gas on the human eye. I highly doubt anyone could confuse hysterical blindness with burns and scarring.

The little paper hanger was a military poser, pure and simple.

if you had read Hitler biography by J.Fest, you would have known that the fact that Hitler was blind after the gas attack and because of the gas itself as it was confirmed by Johann Raab and Heinrich Lugauer who were also the victims of the gas.
Now we can speculate who is to be believed: a guy who claims he saw documents which don't exist any more or 2 other soldiers who were there. I'm not trying to say that a direct relation of these two is more valid than a testimony of that guy who claims to see something in the past. For me this is another "Hitler story" that perfectly fits this pattern:
-someone writes a letter based on documents
-which do not exist any more (the perfect plot goes like that: they were destroyed by Gestapo/SD agents after Hitler became Reichkanzler in 1933)(fire, flood, earthquake are also plausible)
-he writes a book or sells his news to some tabloid (or an newspaper which is less frequent)
-the story is revealed
-trolls can troll (not referring to anyone here)
I've read too many of similar stories based of evidence which no one could confirm. It's like the story of Hitler's having only one ball which was stated after the examination of his body by the Russian doctor. The story was enhanced by a "testimony" given by one of Hitler's doctors who having spent several years in Lubianka (the hardest Soviet prison, you could leave it dead or without any tooth left)and soviet labor camps decided to reveal this "shocking news". The story worked until some brained guy called Hugh Thomas proved that one ball inside can be an effect of fire (gee, Hitler asked to be burned, right?)
Let's stick to facts. It would be easier and less offensive for everyone.

tbh I smeared my eyes with mustard and asked my mom to observe the results:har:

It's still very clear that you haven't read the story. You know what they say about people who comment before reading the article.

There are contrary evidence based on different facts.
Again...there may be a jewish agenda in them so never mind those facts.

Based on overall way Hitler was handling himself...through and in particular toward end of the war i would not be surprised if he had the issues.
There is nothing really that can contradict this besides difference of opinions and professionals that happen to be Jewish?

You red Hitler biography-it merely proves that you are not totally ignorant but not that you can really use your brain.

you are right. besides I have a fixed opinion on tabloid stories concerning Hitler and I know that they are fake before reading them:03:
what is more, I believe only in articles published in Volkischer Beobachter :D

well, putting aside a few ironical lines which I added, I do allow this story to be true. You've just missed it.
However I give it a lesser chance to be true than the official version. Reason- if you flick through most popular Hitler biographies you won;t find there any non-mustard gas reasons to become blind. But I agree that this new explanation might be true. But so far it's not because it's not supported by proofs. And here lies the difference between my brain and yours. I accept proofs and documents, you accept speculations and fairy-tales. I've been dealing with many people whose last-resort argument was "after all Hitler was a Jew". I don't want to say you are one but with each post written you seem to become one.
Coming back to Hitler's behavior: I don;t see any relation between his late-war behavior (well, you can give some particular examples bcoz I don't know what you have in mind)and WW I incident about which this all mess spins around.
Hitler was regarded by his superiors as a disciplined and brave soldier. You can find the quotation from Michaela Freiherra von Godin somewhere over the Internet.
Unless there are more evidences saying that Hitler was a hysterical coward I will stick to the official story which says that he deserved both medals and merits.

I understand that there may be the issue of tying to paint Hitler as a ww1 wimp.
Fact is that he could had been good and disciplined solder but due an traumatic experience suffer the blindness.
At the time of ww1 and ww1 combat fatigue was controversial issue.
Him being wimp or not is besides the point here but he had every reason to lie about it if it was true at the time.

.

According to historical facts and testimonies Hitlers could be very delusional and hysterical when facing reality-in particular when under emotional strain.
It was known issue with his generals and people close to him.
He wasn't pinnacle of emotional stability and cold reasoning-far from it.
So...it is speculation but his character seems prone to such condition.

I don't really care either way but i would not dismiss the opposing view.

Damn!!, and I always thought he was an honest man!:-?

Wanking? Oh so that's what blinded him. :rotfl2: