A groundbreaking genetic investigation into the Führer’s biological blueprint has uncovered long-hidden secrets about his lineage and health, igniting a fierce ethical firestorm over the very act of looking for a “dictator gene” in his blood.
Is Hitler’s DNA worth studying? Or should it have been abandoned? Groundbreaking DNA tests on Adolf Hitler’s blood have revealed unexpected clues about the dictator’s lineage and health conditions, pushing the boundaries of historical forensics. Through painstaking scientific testing, an international team of experts has debunked long-held claims that Hitler was of Jewish descent, confirming he was not, and identified a genetic disorder affecting the development of his genitals. All of this was done using an old piece of blood-stained cloth, a relic from his final moments. Sensational headlines have been used to persuade people that Hitler had a very small penis or only one testicle. But the most serious discovery is that his DNA test showed a very high risk of developing autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, at a one percent increased likelihood. Does this mean he suffered from a neurological condition? Experts say no. It has not been confirmed by a diagnosis. However, concerns have been raised about the stigma and the ethical nature of the research, raising fundamental questions about whether the tests should have been carried out at all.
“I felt strongly about it,” Professor Turi King says in the first few minutes of a documentary about the research, called “Hitler’s DNA: A Dictator’s Blueprint”. The geneticist explained that when she was first invited to join the project years ago, she understood the potential implications of studying the DNA of someone like Adolf Hitler. “I have no interest in doing anything controversial”. She says the research, in some cases carried out by someone else, was carried out “really academically rigorously”, at least under her supervision, with all the “conditions and safeguards” in place. Professor King is no stranger to high-profile and sensitive projects. In 2012, she led the genetic study that confirmed the identity of the skeleton of King Richard III found under a car park in Leicester. The sample itself is a blood-stained piece of cloth, now 80 years old, cut from the sofa in the underground bunker where Hitler committed suicide as Allied forces approached Berlin at the end of World War II. While inspecting the bunker, US Army Colonel Roswell P. Rosengren took the piece of cloth as a unique war trophy. It is now framed and on display at the Gettysburg History Museum in the United States. The Y-chromosome matches a male relative who took a sample ten years ago, leading scientists to believe it is indeed Hitler’s blood. The results, which are currently being reviewed by experts, are truly fascinating. This is the first time Hitler’s DNA has been identified, and it took scientists four years to sequence it, allowing them to see the genetic makeup of the world’s most feared dictator. Experts say it is certain that Hitler did not have Jewish ancestry, as has been rumored since the 1920s, a finding of profound historical irony.
Scientists have discovered that Hitler had a genetic condition called Kallmann syndrome, which can affect the way genitals develop and puberty occurs. One consequence of the disorder is a very small penis and testicles, which was the subject of a rumor about Hitler during World War II. It was even mentioned in a British wartime song. Kallmann syndrome can also affect sexual desire, which is a particularly interesting finding, said Dr. Alex Kay, a historian and lecturer at the University of Potsdam who appears in the documentary. “It tells us a lot about his private life. In fact, he had no private life,” he explains. Historians have long wondered why Hitler was so dedicated to politics, “almost to the exclusion of his private life,” and this could help explain it. Experts say such discoveries make them fascinating and useful. Professor King says: “It’s a combination of history and genetics.” The findings become more complex and controversial, however, suggesting that Hitler may have had a predisposition to one or more neurological or mental health conditions. By studying Hitler’s entire DNA and comparing it with genetic risk scores, researchers found that he was more likely to have autism, ADHD, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This is where the science gets complicated and the ethical concerns intensify.
Polygenic scoring tests a person’s DNA to assess their likelihood of developing a particular disease. This can help identify whether they are more likely to develop conditions such as heart disease or common cancers. However, because it compares their DNA to a larger population, the results can be less accurate in predicting a person’s risk. Experts stress throughout the documentary that DNA analysis is not a diagnosis, but a predisposition. This means that it does not indicate that Hitler had any of these conditions. But some geneticists have expressed concern that the findings are unnecessarily simplistic and potentially dangerous. Denise Syndercombe Court, professor of forensic genetics at King’s College London, thinks they are “going too far in their assumptions.” “In terms of character or behavior, I think it’s pretty useless,” Professor Court, who tested the same blood sample in 2018, stated. She said it was a “limited expression” and she would not want to predict whether someone will have a specific disease from the results. Another geneticist, Dr. Sandhya Raman, put it simply: “Just because a gene is in your DNA does not mean you are likely to have it.” This is reflected in the documentary by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge: “It’s a big leap from biology to behaviour,” he says. “There’s a risk of stigmatisation when looking at genetic results like this. People think, ‘Is my diagnosis linked to someone who did such terrible things?’” He says that focusing solely on genetic conditions is risky, as there are many other factors to consider, including environment and upbringing.
The UK’s National Autism Society was quick to respond, calling the findings “a piece of crap for attention.” Tim Nicholas, associate director of research, said in a statement: “Worse than old-fashioned science, we are appalled by the documentary’s callous disregard for the feelings of people with autism.” “People with autism deserve more.” The issue was taken to Channel 4 and the production company Blink Films, which produced the documentary. In a statement, they point out that experts such as Professor Baron-Cohen have shown that “a person’s behaviour is shaped not only by genetics but also, crucially, by many factors, including their environment; childhood and life experiences, upbringing, education and access to resources, and surrounding cultural influences.” “The programme shows that genetics can provide information about Hitler. But that does not mean that his behaviour was determined by his biology.” The documentary’s title is also a strong one, as is its second part, Blueprint of a Dictator. Professor King said it was not a title she would have chosen. Thomas Weber, a history professor who appears on the programme, said that he was surprised by the headline, as it stressed that “there is no dictator gene”. The professor, who had not seen the documentary before our conversation, said he found the DNA analysis both exciting and worrying. “It was fascinating because it confirmed a lot of things I already suspected about Hitler… but I was worried that people would read too much into genetics, like trying to find the ‘bad gene’.” He was particularly concerned about how people with autism and other syndromes, who are featured in the programme, would take it. There are many difficulties and pitfalls when you try to make a programme about complex science accurate for the general public. “It’s television – it’s oversimplified,” said Professor King, who has extensive experience balancing her responsibilities as a scientist with the realities of working in the media. “They [the documentary filmmakers] could have taken a different tack and gotten attention. But they did not. They have tried to capture some of the nuances… We have put in place safeguards.” Channel 4 responded defensively, saying that the name of its program, “DNA, colloquially known as the ‘blueprint of life'”, also stated that its mission is to “create programs that reach a wide audience, and that this program aims to make complex scientific ideas and historical research accessible to all viewers”.
There are many questions about the ethical nature of the project that remain unresolved. Can Hitler’s DNA be tested when he cannot have his consent or that of a direct descendant? How does that relate to the fact that he is responsible for one of the worst atrocities in history? Does it undermine his right to privacy, even in death? “This is Hitler. He is not some mysterious figure who cannot be DNA tested. Who makes that decision?” Professor King argues. Historian Subhadra Das agrees: “This is what scientists do. There are a lot of people who have died a long time ago and have DNA taken. It is a common practice in science and archaeology. It starts to become questionable how we read it.” Historian Dr. Kay said he does not care about the ethical angle “as long as the truth is there and we make sure to double-check everything.” So, should this research have been done at all? We spoke to a number of geneticists and historians, and the answer depends on who you ask. The people in the documentary, naturally, say yes. It helps to create a more complete picture of Hitler as someone who fascinates and intimidates people in equal measure. “We need to do everything we can to understand the extremism that existed before,” believes Professor Weber. “Let’s be honest,” says Dr. Kay. “These topics were already there… we did not suddenly plant this idea in people’s minds. People have been assuming that Hitler had some kind of disorder for decades.” But not all historians agree. “I think this is a very dubious way of trying to explain what motivated Hitler,” says Eva Vyukusek, associate professor of international history at Utrecht University. Dr Vyukusek, who focuses on the study of mass violence, explained that she could understand why people would be interested, but “whatever answers we are looking for, DNA tests will not find them.” And while the research is interesting, it risks obscuring the real lessons of history, says historian Anne van Moerick. That lesson is that “ordinary people in certain circumstances can commit, initiate or accept horrific violence.” She says that focusing on Hitler’s possibly small penis teaches us nothing about how or why mass violence and genocide occur, shifting focus from societal and political factors to sensationalist biology.
Once the study is completed and reviewed by other experts, all the findings will eventually be published. Professor Weber says they should be used “with extreme caution and caution”, but he hopes they will help in some way. That is the good thing about the research results. It could happen in five, 150, 500 years. “This research is for future generations and I am sure that intelligent people will use it in the future.” But we all have a responsibility in how these results are used. Everyone should “follow the science” and explain what we know and what we do not know, says Dr. Kay. That includes the media and how it reports. “Anyone who watches this documentary has a responsibility to write about it accurately, to make sure they are not contributing to the scandal.” “A documentary like this does not exist in a vacuum.” The quest to understand history through genetics is a powerful new tool, but this case reveals that the answers it provides are often as complex and troubling as the questions we ask.
