A blood sample from—of all people—Adolf Hitler has been procured, authenticated, and sequenced. Apparently the sample came from Hitler’s bunker, in the room where he shot himself after Eva Braun had poisoned herself. A. U.S. soldier collected a piece of the couch’s fabric stained by Hitler’s blood, and it wound up in a U.S. military museum. Investigators then used a relative’s blood taken several years earlier showing that the relative’s Y chromosome perfectly matched Hitler’s Y, as it should have given their relatedness. This authenticates the blood as Hitler’s, and from there one can do DNA analysis, even if the sample is somewhat degraded. This was done, and results of the test are in a two-part documentary to be aired Channel 4 in the UK. There’s a lot of hype about the results, exemplified by this breathy article from the Jerusalem Post (click to read):
The brouhaha centering on Hitler’s micropenis and sexuality has got people worked up because they think that these conditions may have explained Hitler’s behavior. It seems pretty clear that der Füher was not a highly sexed man, but beyond that it’s hard to analyze his psychology, except that he was arrogant, ambitious, and nuts But that we can get from contemporary accounts of his behavior, not from genetics. And speculations that he had one undescended testicle come not from this genetic study (though the study supports it), but from a doctor’s report made when Hitler was in Landberg Prison.
As for the possibility that Hitler’s b ehavior was compensation for a micropenis, we have no idea whether he actually had a microphallus. And “likely” is not the right word. In a good article in the Guardian, Philip Oltermann sets out the results of Hitler’s DNA test quite clearly. Click below to read:
A few excerpts about what the researchers found (the paper has been written, but not yet published). These conclusion are reliable as they come from the excellent evolutionary geneticist Professor Turi King, who made her reputation by sequencing the genome of Richard III, found under a car park in Leicester. Oltermann gives the results:
Some of the insights are scientifically sound and will contribute to historical debate. For one, the programme finally puts to bed an old rumour that Hitler had Jewish ancestry. Its source is the fact that Hitler’s father Alois was an illegitimate child and the identity of his paternal grandfather was unknown. It was only ever speculation, but the fact that it was repeated by Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov as recently as 2022 shows how persistent such rumours can be.
The Y chromosome of Jews is pretty distinctive, as I found when I had my own Y sequenced. 23andMe concluded that I was certainly an Ashkenazi Jew. More:
The researchers also found robust evidence – the deletion of a letter from a gene called PROK2 – that Hitler had some form of a well-known but rare genetic disorder known as Kallmann syndrome [JAC: see here], which prevents a person from starting or fully completing puberty. This chimes with medical records from Landsberg prison, where Hitler was held after the failed Munich beer hall putsch in 1923, unearthed by German researchers in 2010. In them, an examining doctor certified Hitler with a “right-side cryptorchidism” – not quite the missing ball of the British second world war song, but an undescended right testicle. Up to 10% of people with Kallmann syndrome also have a “micropenis”; more prevalent symptoms are low or fluctuating testosterone levels.
A 10% probability is not a “likely,” for crying out loud!
Oltermann has apparently seen the show, and is critical about its creep into psychological territory, for this is based not on single mutations but on probabilities obtained from multiple sequence differences that can’t really tell us anything dispositive about Hitler’s psychology:
If Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator had stopped here, it may have made a solid programme: sensational but also credible. Instead, the makers also set out to “assess [Hitler’s] genetic propensity for psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions”, by carrying out polygenic risk score (PRS) tests. From the results, they assert that Hitler had “higher-than-likely average likelihood of ADHD”, a “high probability” of some autistic behaviours, a “propensity for antisocial behaviour” and “a high probability of developing schizophrenia”.
. . . Many scientists fear this to be part of an insidious creep towards genetic determinism that is not backed by evidence. “Polygenic risk scores tell you something about population at large, not about individuals,” says David Curtis, an honorary professor at the UCL Genetics Institute. “If a test shows you to be in the upper percentile of polygenic risk, the actual risk of acquiring a condition may still be very low, even for conditions that are strongly influenced by genetic factors”. A psychological test may determine whether you have a “propensity” for schizophrenia – a PRS test, many scientists say, cannot indicate a propensity in the same sense of the word.
. . . . “One of the things that we as geneticists are really, really trying to get across is that genetic determinism is wrong,” Turi King tells me in an interview. “We cannot say for certain that Hitler had any of these conditions, only that he was in the highest percentile in terms of genetic load for some conditions.”
It’s a word of warning that the film’s editors have not fully taken to heart. When a psychiatric geneticist from Aarhus University presents Hitler’s polygenic risk score for ADHD in the programme, it is shown to be merely “higher than average”, yet in the voiceover a few seconds later, this becomes a “propensity for ADHD”. Within two minutes talking head Michael Fitzgerald, who specialises in diagnosing historical figures with autism, says: “People with ADHD, like Hitler”. When I raise the ADHD claims with King, she seems to express surprise that so much has been made of the findings for the condition in the final cut, since they were only “moderately elevated”.
Again, the top half of people in the risk category for ADHD does not mean that Hitler definitely had ADHD, as anybody with brains knows. We’ll have to wait until King’s paper on Hitler, which is under review at a “reputable scientific journal,” comes out to see the situation. It looks as if Channel 4 clearly jumped the gun. They should have waited until King’s final paper was accepted so that what the program presented would be science that had passed peer review.
Adam Rutherford, in a piece on his substack, as well as a pile o’ tweets (see below), iis also upset about the distortion of what King found. Click headline to read:
A couple of excerpts, which second the conclusions of the Guardian piece.
There is also a scientific paper in the works, but this is the gist. It is quite possible that Hitler had a significant disorder of sexual development. The DNA bears a mutation which is strongly associated with a condition called Kallman Syndrome and Congenital Hypogonadotropic Hypogonadism. This is a complex disorder of sexual development, and as is often the case with this type of condition, the physical characteristics are varied. One consistent expression of Kallman Syndrome in males is incomplete or delayed puberty and infertility, cryptorchidism and microphallus – an undescended testicle and an unusually small penis. It is impossible to know what Adolf Hitler’s genitals were like, and there is one medical report from his time in Landsberg Prison in 1923 that says he had right-sided cryptorchidism. I have no particular desire to spend anything other than the minimum amount of time thinking about them. But the new genetic evidence – and I choose my words very carefully here – is consistent with Adolf Hitler only having one visible testicle. I expect some of you of a certain age are now humming a particular tune.
Most important of all, aside from the salaciousness of the main claims about his genitals, is that the polygenic risk analysis categorically does NOT and CANNOT be used to ascribe complex psychiatric or psychological traits to an individual. Genetics plays no role in the diagnosis of schizophrenia or ADHD or bipolar. Hitler did not have ‘the gene for schizophrenia’ because there is no such thing. He did not have schizophrenia cos he was not diagnosed as such, and posthumous or remote diagnosis are not possible. We should express extreme caution in discussing this with regards to any individual, let alone one of such historical significance. The Daily Mail seem to have missed this.
. . . None of this new genetic provides any deterministic evidence that his evil was rooted in his genes. It does not give any weight to the ill-conceived notion that evil is somehow biologically encoded. It does, however, potentially add a new level of complexity to a psychologically unusual man, whose actions and beliefs are of profound historical significance, and therefore should be added to the body of evidence. We cannot know much more than this, but the new genetic evidence strongly suggests, at least, that Adolf Hitler’s sexual biology and anatomy was atypical, and possibly significantly disordered. How this might have affected his behaviours, his views, his relationship with women and his overall temperament is entirely in the realm of speculation.
There’s more to read, including the number of Germans who were executed for mental disorders, and about Kallman himself, a Jew who fled Germany, but you can read the article above. In the meantime, here is a bunch of posts by Rutherford tamping down the excitement about this discovery (click to go to thread):
QED.
Finally, I can’t help but present this British WWII marching song that alludes to the “junk” of various Nazi leaders, including Hitler’s possession of only one ball. There’s even a long Wikipedia article about this song! I learned it as a kid.
Really? With all the crap that’s going these days we should care about the size of a dead dictator’s business? Or waste time and energy writing and talking about it?
YES Dave! It tires me.
If people spent more time studying things like actual history, economics etc. the average American might have a better understanding of the world than one which starts and ends with… movie Nazis.
With a better understanding of history there’d be fewer Hamas supporters yelling River to Sea in our cities, also. (Whose watermelon head idiots – mainly girls – have NO understanding of what they’re simping/cucking for.)
D.A.
NYC
I am SO sorry that my post tires you. Why did you read it in the first place?
Have some respect! It might get the Ig Nobel! Dr. Jack Van Impe and his missus got the prize for locating hell. This is at least as relevant. Maybe more.
Okay, Mr. McCrady, that is a very rude comment. I did not ask you to care about this issue, nor did I ask you to read the post. And, no, I did not waste my time writing about it, as lots of people want to know what is going on. But I suggest you read the more interesting posts that you apparently find on other websites. All your cmment adds to the discussion is that you feel superior to all the other people who have something to say about it.
Bye.
I thought of “Hitler Has Only Got One Ball” as soon as I started reading this post. It is nice to have clarity on the ‘Hitler was a Jew’ trope. As for the other, aside from the mockery that claims about Hitler and his short-comings provided contemporaneously, I’ve never seen the point of the speculation. Was Hitler driven to domination by a sexual condition? There have been many dissections of Hitler and Nazism, and we don’t require the presence of a sexual condition to explain them. Are others who suffer likewise driven to world conquest? It would seem not.
But there is the common sentiment that some poorly-endowed men compensate for their shortcomings by buying big trucks or fast cars. There have even been studies supporting this contention. Isn’t it then logical, if not wholly scientific, to at least wonder if such a condition can in some people lead to a psychological need for power?
And now…
Deep Thoughts…
by Philip Oltermann…
[ soothing music ]
[ imagery of a bright, idyllic autumn forest glade ]
“Did Hitler really have a micropenis?”
You know why Hitler was never circumcised?…There was no end to that schmuck! Just saying that sometimes you should laugh.
Kallman syndrome somewhat resembles the effects, which some claim to be so benign, of puberty blocker treatment. Could it be that Herr Hitler enjoyed (so to speak) an accidental precursor of what is now referred to as “affirmative care”? How inspiring.
Alan Turing pioneered the use of puberty blockers, too. It didn’t end happily, of course.
He was treated horribly.
At least with poor Turing, at the time they accurately called it “chemical castration”. Still no-less horrible by today’s standards.
Yup, at least they were honest. “Gender-affirming healthcare” isn’t quite so much.
Diethylstilbestrol actually, a synthetic estrogen. GnRHa’s are less feminizing and thrombogenic but hadn’t been invented yet. Turing got off easy, all things considered, having been convicted of a crime yet avoiding prison by agreeing to take the drug during a year of probation. (Inflicting impotence on a homosexual man would have been regarded as a kindness back then, or at least for his own good.) One wonders if Someone Very High Up, perhaps the new Queen herself, assuming she was privy to the Ultra secret and Turing’s role in it, might have had a quiet word with her Home Office who would be unaware of his war work. In any event he seems to have borne it with good grace and was not despondent when he died, a year after his probation ended. It was the lot of homosexuals in those days to be quietly miserable in the shadows, if not well-placed aristocrats.
He would have to lose his security clearance and his job with what Bletchley Park grew into, having been convicted of a crime. This was all smack in the middle of the international freakout against homosexuals in government employ sparked by the Cambridge Five, a cabal of moles who had thoroughly penetrated the Secret Intelligence Service, spying for a seriously scary USSR. Kim Philby himself had helped compromise the Manhattan project, vetting the insertion of Klaus Fuchs into Los Alamos, and the Soviets had recently tested their atomic bomb. Because the Five all escaped to the East they were never interrogated, embarrassing Britain in the eyes of America. Turing’s arrest must have scared the British shitless. “Alan, how could you be so careless! The war’s over. You’re not indispensable anymore, you know.”
This could be condemned as ignorant stereotyping except that all the best psychiatrists agreed, and would for another twenty years, that homosexuality was a mental illness. The afflicted were thought to be ready to betray their nation’s secrets at any moment that they might be seized with a hissy fit of homosexual panic, or something. Philby (himself more of an opportunistic sodomite than truly homosexual) and his gang were proof of the stereotype. My reading of Turing is that he was a decent man tragically caught in a system larger than himself. Everyone in it was decently plodding along doing his job and “following the science” …while fighting the Red Menace for the next four decades.
The polygenic risk analysis saying that Hitler was in the top 1% of the population for risk of autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, plus markers for psychopathy (though that is not the same as saying that he definitely had any of these) seems more interesting than the sexual disorder.
Adam Rutherford is happy enough that genes can result in a bodily disorder but wants to disdain the idea that genes can influence our psychological traits (“It does not give any weight to the ill-conceived notion that evil is somehow biologically encoded”) but that is presumably because he is woke and so denies that genes influence behaviour (whereas of course they do).
Isn’t it Coel, in defence of Rutherford, more that genes CAN influence physiological and psychological traits but not necessarily. The environment plays a role and even that too is not a given. I think he was guarded to prevent one trick pony gene conspiracies.
Rutherford’s substack:
“Hitler did not have ‘the gene for schizophrenia’ because there is no such thing. He did not have schizophrenia cos he was not diagnosed as such, and posthumous or remote diagnosis are not possible. We should express extreme caution in discussing this with regards to any individual, let alone one of such historical significance. The Daily Mail seem to have missed this.”
Likewise I may have missed something.
Our psychological traits are always, always influenced by genes, though, yes, environmental factors always play a role also.
This is an example of Rutherford being technically correct but deliberately misleading. He’s right that Hitler did not have “THE” gene for schizophrenia “because there is no such thing”. That’s because liability to schizophrenia is not about ONE gene, it’s about hundreds of them (most traits are polygenic).
But schizophrenia is indeed strongly genetically influenced (the heritability is about 80%) and the reported study says that Hitler’s genes placed him in the top 1% of the population for risk of developing schizophrenia (and bipolar disorder and autism). (Which, again, is not the same as saying he certainly had those things.)
Contra Rutherford, it is obviously possible to have un-diagnosed schizophrenia (or autism or bipolar disorder or psychopathy).
He’s right that we need to be cautious in interpreting these findings — they are about probabiltiies, and it is possible that Hitler both had a very high genetic risk profile for these things, but did not in fact suffer from them and so was (in that sense) psychologically normal.
And Rutherford may be right that the Daily Mail and others have misunderstood and misreported these things (I’ve not checked).
But, still, Rutherford is wrong in always wanting to deny the role of genes in psychological traits (while claiming he’s only trying to rebut the strawman that psychological traits are 100% determined by genes, with zero environmental influence, which no-one ever claims).
He has the woke attitude that, even if the body is influenced by genes, that human psychology is a blank slate written on only by the environment.
Thank you for that. It saved me from posting another rant.
Re the not-100% dodge, I strongly believe that early high school math(s) should include an easily-understood unit on probability, up to and including Bayesian analysis with some if its counterintuitive results. Genetics does “determine” Bayesian priors of schizophrenia etc., regardless of one’s moral stance on “genetic determinism”.
And I am thoroughly unimpressed with the ridiculous assertion that schizophrenia exists only when an appropriately-credentialed authority says it does. Clearly “undiagnosed schizophrenia” is a thing.
And, fully OT, for some reason I internally pronounce “micropenis” as mi-CROP-enis; like Metropolis, coincidentally the home of a different übermensch.
The “gene for schizophrenia” claim makes use of a common tactic: claiming the others believe that every thing (like basketball!) has a specific gene for it, which obviously means that the whole notion of genetic influence is ridiculous. (Everyone in fact knows that most traits are polygenic. It’s rather tiresome, akin to disproving sex differences because there is overlap.)
Schizophrenia diagnosis would also benefit from a better understanding of causes, and that includes genetic testing which could help doctors to figure out what is behind the phenotypes they encounter.
The odd thing about the score here to me is actually its vagueness: I know mental illnesses and paraphilias correlate, but aren’t autism and schizophrenia usually thought of as opposite diseases? And throwing ADHD in only adds to the confusion. Hope Razib Khan can enlighten us and explain what was actually done here.
Rutherford made claims of this sort before, and he is consequently somewhat disliked by hereditarians. I find the new results very interesting and also relevant. There has of course been a lot of speculation about Hitler’s sexuality, but this clarifies things, and also lends more weight to the theory that he was autistic.
The laws of nature apply always, so I’m not going to believe that an obvious lack of masculinity and personality disorders would not have an impact on Hitler, anymore than the alleged irrelevance of Parkinson’s on his behaviour in his final years. It’s wishful thinking. I suspect someone with a similar genetic profile would resemble him to the level of entertaining similar ideas about mass eradication of disliked groups.
Finally, “we cannot say anything about Hitler’s personality or its causes” is not the revealed opinion of historians. As long as you are happy to use environmental explanations (or even psychological speculation to the point of childhood trauma theories), you cannot dismiss genetic explanations.
HA!
https://www.science.org/content/article/rats-filmed-snatching-bats-air-first-time?utm_campaign=NewsfromScience&utm_medium=ownedSocial&utm_source=twitter
Completely OT so apologies but video was interesting to me.
I’ll never again think of the V-2 rocket quest in quite the same way as before.
🙂.
I have to admit that standing right next to an actual V-2 on display at the Munich Science Museum did make me feel rather weak in the knees….
I see that comedian Sacha Baron Cohen’s cousin, the professor of developmental psychopathology at the University of Cambridge Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, was part of the research team. (I’ve no idea why Sacha doesn’t use a hyphen in his name whilst Sir Simon does.)
Speculation in regards to Hitler’s sexual anatomy or genetic past as to holding some incredible secret that will explain everything about the horrors he committed are ridiculous and miss a major factor. Namely, that Hitler did not commit his crimes by himself. Millions of people who adored him went along with his atrocities, thinking they were thereby creating a fantastic Aryan empire that would last 1,000 years. Those people weren’t magically hypnotized to obey Hitler. They enabled him to put his bigotries and resentments and glory-seeking into action because they shred them and he was simply the one who managed to arouse too many of his fellow Germans to his hate parade. They didn’t all share his hatreds or goals, but enough thought he was just the man to put all wrongs to right, put the economy back in order and make them proud to be Germans again. *Rump and his idolizers are following the same path to dubious glory. DT hasn’t yet been as destructive as AH, but we don’t know how much further damage he will do during the remaining three years and two months of his remaining term, assuming that he completes it and doesn’t find some way to further trample over the U.S. Constitution and make himself President for the remainder of his misbegotten life.
I guess we can’t invoke Godwin’s Law when the topic was already Hitler. Maybe there should be a Godwin’s Corollary that when the topic is Hitler you can’t invoke Trump.
Because it’s an ad hominem against Mr H? 🙂
Hitler’s DNA? I can’t be the only one thinking about The Boys From Brazil, surely?
Gregory Peck did well in an atypically villainous role. Otherwise, on the subject of cloning, I prefer The Simpsons.