What can we learn from Hitler's blood?
On the controversy around the dictator's DNA
Any documentary that sets out to analyse Adolf Hitler’s DNA is bound to court controversy. Unsurprisingly, the responses were fast and partially furious when a British team used a bloodstained piece of fabric said to have come from the sofa on which Hitler shot himself in 1945 to do just that and present their findings on TV. A DNA sample from a male descendant confirmed that the blood really was Hitler’s, allowing the team to outline a number of conclusions that led to spectacular headlines and a debate about whether such investigations should be carried out at all.
No sooner had the Channel 4 documentary Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator been broadcast than a remarkable division emerged in the press, including in Germany. One side questioned the project. Is it acceptable to examine the DNA of a mass murderer, and what does it mean to discuss genetic predispositions for certain physical and mental health conditions publicly? The other side responded with clickbait headlines ranging from “Did Hitler really have a micropenis?” to sensationalist insinuations of genetically explainable evil.
Both reactions fall short. One suggests legitimate scientific discourse should be limited or blocked, while the other distorts it. What remains, however, are interesting findings that need to be seriously evaluated – both within the academic community and by a public that has a legitimate interest in history.
First of all, it should be noted that the documentary's findings are based on solid foundations. The project was led by Turi King, a Professor of Genetics at the University of Leicester, who became famous for identifying the remains of King Richard III a few years ago.
In Hitler, her team found a genetic mutation that indicates the possibility that the dictator may have had the rare Kallmann syndrome, a disorder that can lead to delayed or incomplete puberty and sexual development, testicular malformations or even the aforementioned micropenis – topics that some media outlets picked up on with voyeuristic zeal.
The research team’s decision to conduct tests of so-called polygenic risk scores (PRS) for neuropsychiatric traits attracted almost as much attention. The documentary makers conclude from the results that Hitler had an above-average genetic risk for ADHD as well as for autistic behaviour, schizophrenia and antisocial behaviour. However, even the scientists involved emphasise that PRS do not enable diagnoses.
This highlights the crucial point: the researchers do not attempt to explain Hitler’s crimes biologically – yet some viewers and journalists interpret it that way. The sharpest criticism is directed at the danger of stigmatisation. The National Autistic Society called it a “cheap stunt” and warned against associating mental dispositions with Hitler’s actions. There is also a historically sensitive aspect: the subtitle Blueprint of a Dictator evokes the idea of a genetic blueprint for evil. Critics warned that the documentary was dangerously close to the deterministic biological thinking that Hitler himself propagated.
Such objections are valid. The discourse on Hitler’s biology must always remain aware that his crimes were deeply rooted in political, ideological and social factors – and did not result from chromosomes. At the same time, it is too simplistic to dismiss the results out of hand as “questionable”, as some newspapers did.
Research on historical figures – including their biological remains – is a legitimate part of historical scholarship. And in Hitler’s case in particular, there are numerous myths, conspiracy theories and medical speculations that have been circulating for decades. The fact that the documentary suggests that Hitler was not of Jewish descent – a claim that has been repeatedly exploited for political purposes – is, for example, a relevant finding.
References to physical or hormonal traits, such as Kallmann syndrome, can also touch on historical questions: What role did health-related insecurities play in Hitler’s self-image? Did they influence his demeanour, his self-presentation or his political obsessions? This does not mean that genetics provides a full explanation – but it opens windows into biographical aspects that were previously only indirectly accessible.
This view is shared by Professor Thomas Weber, who teaches History at the University of Aberdeen and was involved in the documentary. When I asked him why he wanted to participate, he said: “I ultimately came to the conclusion that the only ethically responsible decision would be to take part in the programme after I had ascertained that the science behind the project was legitimate and that the filmmakers would approach the subject responsibly.”
Weber also objects to the subtitle, “because it suggests that psychopathology could provide a general explanation for extremism or radicalisation.” However, he believes it is important not to apply special methodological criteria for Hitler. He thinks it is insightful to examine possible psychopathological disorders, which has long been a common practice in fields such as extremism and radicalisation research. In his work to date, Weber says he had already come across indications “that Hitler may have had psychological pathologies and that these may have had an impact on how he saw himself.”
Weber found the reactions in the press “depressing. Either they were ‘micropenis articles’ or seemingly serious articles explaining why it was pointless or dangerous to look at Hitler’s DNA.” He points out that extremism research has long been “very careful and cautious” with concepts such as psychopathology, and that new findings about Hitler’s DNA are “of course useful” for scholars like him.
Weber admitted to being “in equal measure electrified and concerned” when confronted with the DNA data, but added that he “could immediately see how these results would help us better understand how Hitler saw himself and his place in the world, how he interacted with others and how he tried to remould the world.” The findings cannot now be made to disappear or ignored. We must “apply in a sober and careful fashion the insights of interdisciplinary research.”
I think Weber is right. Questions about whether DNA research on Hitler “should” be used or whether it “serves a purpose” must be answered by researchers. Furthermore, such findings cannot be discussed exclusively within academic circles. History affects us all. And especially in times when misinformation and myths about the “Third Reich” are flourishing, transparency is a value in itself.
But the public needs context. And this is where the media has a responsibility. Sensational headlines generate clicks but undermine serious debate. Equally problematic are knee-jerk moral condemnations that portray any genetic research as a breach of taboo, putting pressure on serious researchers who may be less willing to participate in such projects next time.
What is needed is a middle ground, characterised by open presentation, clear context and scientific prudence. The results should be reviewed by experts and subjected to scientific scrutiny. Only then can a media-effective experiment become a contribution to research.
Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator is neither a brilliant breakthrough nor a moral transgression. It is a scientific experiment with exciting findings and clear limits. Do the claims sometimes go too far? Certainly, even some of the scholars in the film say so. The task now is to communicate these limits – without condemning the curiosity that made them visible.
Hitler’s biography is not sacred, not sacrosanct and not complete. We are allowed to examine, question and research. But we must do so with restraint. This is precisely where it will be decided whether the discussion about Hitler’s DNA will be a step forward – or just another reflex reaction to headlines that produce more noise than insight.
This text is a translation of my column in the Berliner Zeitung this weekend.
I did watch it,mainly out of curiosity while at the same time thinking is this really necessary do we gain any further knowledge ,on balance the way psychological information is extracted from a speck of blood is endlessly fascinating and of course being Hitler's DNA makes the whole project controversial. A careful line to tread the difference between excusing and explaining.
Thank you Katja, I might have missed it outerwise