Your claim to be a historian in no way makes you better than I at rational thought, nor' does it make you any more perceptive to any potential inconsistencies; What it does seem to do though, is give you a sense that you are more qualified, no, superior than I am, and therefore my question is now null yes? I ask again, what exactly is there to doubt? If you were half a good a historian as you claim, you'd know that when you make claims, you corroborate it with evidence, as historians before you have been doing for hundreds of years. Historians in the modern age didn't just dream up flights of fancy about Hitler trying to become an artist and then becoming unstable after his experiences during the great war. They came to those conclusions through hard work, research and endless peer review.

If you were in any way as firm in your convictions, as a historian, when I ask you where your doubts lie, you'd answer with what you view to be said inconsistencies. Otherwise it seems like you're just digging for snippets to formulate an idea that you want to have.

If you had a leg to stand on, you'd answer me honestly, instead of questioning me or my qualifications. You know nothing about me, and for all you know I could very well be one of the few historians worth a damn. That's the thing about the internet, anonymity in many ways puts us all on equal footing. So if you want to hide behind a Reddit account a few hours old, and make bold claims, then I'll just sit here and laugh you off as either a wehraboo, or some loony fuck nut nationalist that is being slowly lured by how "strong" and "fearless" Hitler must have been, if only those "bad" historians hadn't covered up the truth!