Hitler's Disease

[phoenix]

Nae sure if this is our University of Aberdeen , given that there are at least half-a-dozen Aberdeens in the U.S.A.

 

 

A notorious propaganda story told by Adolf Hitler about himself can now be exposed as a lie. The F

[Chrisyboy81]

I'm not sure about this, why was he awarded the iron cross then? I don't think he gave it to himself, I could be wrong but I thought it was legitimate.

[Jones]

Hitler was blind??

[The Boofon]

Hitler was blind??

 

Not totally blind.

 

He needed National Health glasses but refused to wear them as he thought he'd get bullied.

 

How history would have turned out if those glasses had a bit more style nobody knows.

 

[looksgoodinred]

Nae sure if this is our University of Aberdeen , given that there are at least half-a-dozen Aberdeens in the U.S.A.

 

 

 

From the publisher's site: Thomas Weber is Lecturer in Modern European, International, and Global Political History at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. His first book, The Lodz Ghetto Album, won the Infinity Award of the International Center of Photography and the Golden Light Award. His second book, Our Friend "The Enemy", won the Duc d'Arenberg History Prize.

[Ke1t]

Dr Thomas Weber is based at King's College in Aberdeen, and seems to be interested in Jewish studies.... just to get a feel for the man who's making the claim.

 

As Mel Gibson might say, "Does he have a dog in this fight?"

 

Looking up the alleged "Hysterical Blindness" I notice that it's possibly a push to term it a mental illness,

 

"The term hysterical blindness refers not to a medical condition, but rather a rare psychological condition in which trauma from an injury or illness results in a patient's assumed inability to see. The emotional turmoil experienced by people suffering from hysterical blindness causes them to block off visual impulses from the eyes to the brain."

 

And given Hitler was fighting in the trenches of WWI it's not particularly difficult to understand how the guy could have suffered a trauma or an illness, what with artillery barrages lasting weeks at a time and accommodation being a variety of flooded, rat-rat infested trenches filled with the dead and dying.

 

Hitler was also awarded not one but two Iron Crosses, the first of which was while wounded by grenade shrapnel.... Hmmmm.... and Dr Weber suggests Hitler was a rear-echelon rat?

 

Well, unless the guy who threw that grenade has a pitching arm like Superman... sorry, Ubermensch... the evidence points to Hitler operating right in among the action, rather than back at HQ taking weiner schnitzel with the Kaiser as Mr Weber suggests.

 

I've also got a tremendous amount of doubt in Dr Weber's claim that the owner of two Iron Crosses was the subject of the derision of his fellow combatants.

 

"Hitler, much as we would like him to have been a coward and a shirker, was in fact a very good soldier. He remained calm under fire, showed respect to his superiors and never questioned his orders. Whilst casualties mounted and morale fell away, Hitler unstintingly carried on with his duty. He was rewarded with a promotion to Lance Corporal.

 

As the fighting continued the List regiment was used in a number of assaults just to the south of Ypres. Facing the French this time, the Germans received yet another mauling. Hitler earned an Iron Cross 2nd Class in an engagement near Croonaert Wood, Wytschaete. During the fighting and under heavy fire, Hitler, now appointed Meldeganger (a dispatch runner), stumbled across a seriously wounded officer left out in the open.

 

Along with a friend, he managed to pull the wounded man back to safety. Hitler received his award in December 1914. The action at the First Ypres decimated his regiment. Hitler wrote to his Munich landlord reporting that only 600 men were left out of approximately 3500. Colonel List was among the fatalities."

 

Other things we might want to remember about Hitler was that he was initially refused entry to the Austrian army, after he volunteered (wasn't drafted), but he petitioned the Bavarian Army and was allowed to join up. He was promoted to Lance Corporal, so presumably he had some kind of leadership or fighting qualities that Dr Weber seems to be missing. The Messenger Group suffered horrific casualties, because they were out running orders and directives under fire, particularly when bombardment had severed lines of communication, while other soldiers were hunkering down in their flooded rat-trenches.

 

Now I don't particularly give a flying fuck if Hitler was the Teutonic equivalent of Superman, or if he was too scared to boil water in case he got a burny.... but revisionist history pisses me off something terrible.

 

We seem to be going through a period of time where we're only too happy to demonise and belittle those who 'aren't like us'.

 

Al-Qaeda, we're told, are cowards... they flew planes into the WTC. Well, excuse me, but personally I reckon you'd need balls of fucking steel to do that to yourself. A coward is going to call in sick and go, "I've got the shits... I can't fly a plane into a building today, sorry Boss."

 

The Mujahideen in the Hindu Kush are cowards, despite being a bunch of mountain boys armed with donkeys and ageing AK47s up against the largest, most powerful military the world has ever seen. We're expected to suspend disbelief and accept that a plooky American kid operating umanned drones, with no risk to himself whatsoever, is somehow a heroic warrior, while the goat-fuckers are the bollocks-merchants.

 

Seriously?

 

And now Hitler was a chickenshit who was derided by his fellow soldiers?

 

[daytripping]

I agree kelt, always makes me laugh when the taliban are described as cowards for planting IED'S, if we fought them on a level playing we'd be running round after them on scooters with a 40 year old weapon and feck all else, if we left the tanks and war planes at home then yes they would be cowards, at the moment they're doing great imo.

[Jocky Balboa]

It's interesting how Revisionists like this guy are given the time of day at all to voice their opinion, yet Revisionists at the other ends of the spectrum (from writers like David Irving, to dissenters like Norman Finkelstein, to Scientists like Germar Rudolf, among many others) are jailed for their views... interesting.

[Ke1t]

It's interesting how Revisionists like this guy are given the time of day at all to voice their opinion, yet Revisionists at the other ends of the spectrum (from writers like David Irving, to dissenters like Norman Finkelstein, to Scientists like Germar Rudolf, among many others) are jailed for their views... interesting.

 

Standing in an airport book store, I came across a book called (I think) The Blitzkrieg Myth. Being a bit of a WW2 fanatic I bought it for the flight.

 

Unadulterated pish.

 

First the author took the concept of Blitzkrieg, gave it an entirely new meaning and then proceeded to disassemble his own misrepresentation of the strategy, summing up his nonsense with a "So, as you can see, Blitzkrieg was bollocks!"

 

And this fucker was allowed to publish his nonsense.

 

That was my first real encounter with revisionism... it was just fucking laughable. I thought I had dumped it in the trash upon landing, but I think I might actually still have it somewhere, just so I can have a good laugh at this guy's 'interpretation' of what Blitzkrieg is.

 

I checked out the reviews for The Blitzkreig Myth on Amazon... seems I'm not alone in my feelings towards the author of this book.

 

* "Mr. Mosier, an English professor, is out of his league when grappling with the issues of strategy, doctrine, tactics, and technology in the Second World War. Mosier writes simply to provoke rather than inform."

 

* "Like many a would-be revisionist, Mosier's attitude toward the existing literature is cavalier in the extreme. He dismisses without comment the vast majority of the most respected studies of the warfare and campaigns of the period. "

 

* "Hilariously bad revisionist history. I can't decide whether the author took this wholly unsupported contrarian view of armored warfare to garner personal attention, or as a support for his Montgomery nutswinging.

 

I received this book as a gift, and laughs aside, still feel as though I paid too much! "

 

etc....

 

The only thing that depresses me about obvious revisionism of the kind found in this thread is that people will buy into it.

 

As for Weber's book, at least one reviewer wrote...

 

"The book is a revisionist history about Hitler's WWI record. "

 

Which is my first impression based upon the synopsis.

 

It's not all bad news for Weber, though.. I think I might buy a copy.