Yes, Hitler was a decorated war hero.
Yes, Chucrchill drank and did Opium (look at the times he was in and look at the state of England even to this day. I’m surprised the current Prime Minister isn’t getting right snockered on the regular.)
Yes, FDR had extramartial affairs, so did Clinton.
Did we cannonize Clinton as a saint for it like we do FDR just because FDR got us through WWII? No.
Remember, Clinton got us through Desert Storm.

So one was a vile despot
One was a raging alchy with a barbituate additcion
And one was a philanderer with his head in the clouds and his body in a wheelchair
Thats just who these people were.

As to the abortion thing:
Arg, really? Just because the mother had syphillis and other babies born with birth defects, she should abort her child? No.
Oh, and Beethoven’s deafness (sometimes attributed to being born to a syphillic mother) didnt lose his hearing til he was much older.

Just sayin…

Regarding the abortion question, this just gets back to the heart of the abortion debate - “Should I, or not?”. A single example isn’t really helpful. Perhaps, through chance, the child you aborted would have been Hitler instead? It’s still a meaningless exercise, because you don’t have the information to make a decision based on the potential child’s future at the time. The net result could be either positive or negative. The question must ultimately devolve to issues of the parents’ situation and ethics, and any governing laws. If asked for advice (as in the hypothetical situation), I would fall back to my own ethics and knowledge of the parents’ situation, and as presented, they don’t paint a positive picture of the future for the potential child. This is why people make the decision they do.

As for the second hypothetical, the only thing we’ve learned is that the facts you’ve presented are not good bases for decisions about a person’s value or leadership potential. When judging a decision about a future leader, we (ideally) take all of the facts we have available about a person, and project, as best we can, their future behaviour. Given the import of the decision, one would do well to have substantially more facts available than presented: given the limited information available, it’s hardly surprising that most people would make a poor decision.

His bad war injury happened towards the end of the war, he suffered injuries in a poisonous gas attack by the British (temporary blindness to my knowledge is undisputed in the historical discourse, although it seems to be an ordinary reaction - “mere” swollen eye lids - and nothing specifically suffered by him).
Btw his own experience is said to have led to the mutual resignation of gas in WWII by all combattant parties (of course this renders the use of gas in industrial slaughter of people in concentration camps, Jews, Roma, Sinti, handicapped, dissidents etc, even more despiseful - he was “human” enough to not use it against the worst enemies of his Reich in combat because he knew what being gassed meant, yet he killed German and Austrian citizens and occupied peoples of “unworthy” blood or ideology with it).

So the fact he was in WWI is secured, he s even decorated several times, after the gas injury with the Iron Cross Class I. I have little knowledge of the heirarchy in decorations, but I think it s apretty high Prussian decoration.

Just for getting the facts straight.

I am not sure about his studies of military strategy though. His lack of knowledge or even reason, compared with his superiority complex (self declared “Greatest Commander of All Times”), drove his Generals to despair (and his lack of competence made Stauffenberg, a devout Nazi, attempt assassination to save the Reich - to also get this hideous hero movie with Tom Cruise straight).
I believe it is safe to say he really was not a man of strategy, nor of brilliant intellect. At least that - I shiver when imagining Europe today had he been any brighter.