Did Hitler have a micropenis, autism, Jewish ancestry? Blood on the suicide couch was analyzed

New documentary promises to answer several rumors and mysteries about the dictator with a simple DNA sample. But should biology be tied to moral evil?

Small penis, solitary testicle, Jewish ancestry, and so on. Until today, they have been nothing more than rumors, but a new documentary promises to bring to light more concrete results in the (historically failed) attempt to sequence his DNA and, thus, answer ‘truth’ or ‘myth’ to the most varied questions about the former German leader’s anatomy and mind.

Entitled , the two-episode British documentary will explore the rumors in depth, after having managed to genetically trace the Nazi dictator’s psychiatric conditions (calm down, we’ll get there).

In a previous production, Dead Famous DNA (2014), hair acquired by David Irving, a Holocaust denier, did not belong to the dictator and turned out to be useless for genetic analysis, recalls . Now, hopes are renewed, thanks to the sofa where the Führer shot himself on April 30, 1945.

Team found Führer’s blood

The producers of the documentary with premiere scheduled for next Saturday, November 15th — and which will be transmitted based on a study that has not yet been peer-reviewed — managed to obtain a authentic blood sample from a piece of fabric from the sofa where Hitler killed himselfallegedly collected by an American soldier, at the end of the Second World War.

To validate the authenticity of the blood, the researchers used a male relative of Hitlerwhose DNA had been collected ten years earlier by a Belgian journalist investigating rumors of an illegitimate son of the dictator. The Y chromosome matching test confirmed the genetic link and, although the formal permission to use the family member’s DNA was unclear, the team of scientists felt confident enough to consider Hitler’s sample as valid for research.

Jewish ancestry, micropenis and a psychological connection

The documentary featured Tythe scientist responsible for Richard III’s DNA in the Leicester car park. King extracted information about the Hitler’s ancestry, biology and mental health. Some results are historically relevant; others, ethically controversial.

And no, Hitler did not have Jewish ancestryexplains the team. For years, rumors denounced the illegitimate nature of his father, Alois Hitler, and the unknown identity of his paternal grandfather. The genetic study eliminated this possibility.

The documentary also revealed that Hitler had a mutation in the PROK2 gene, associated with Kallmann syndromea rare condition that prevents the complete initiation of puberty and which corresponds to medical records from the period in which Hitler was imprisoned after the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich in 1923, which indicated “cryptorchidism of the right testicle”, that is, an undescended testicle. Kallmann syndrome is associated, in some cases, with micropenis and low or fluctuating testosterone levels.

The team is quick to make an association between the medical conditions they detected and Hitler’s psychological state: the first may have influenced the second, almost as if the inability to establish sexual connections considered normal had been compensated by the “marriage” with the German Homeland, argues the documentary, according to The Guardian.

Attention deficit, autism, schizophrenia (and an ‘elephant in the room’)

In a polygenic risk estimation test (PRS), used to predict Hitler’s phenotype, the Nazi leader’s genetic propensity for psychiatric and behavioral diseases was also assessed.

Hitler would present an above-average risk of having PhD (ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), autistic behaviors, antisocial tendencies and risk of schizophrenia.

This is what the results presented in the documentary supposedly say, but, in addition to those responsible for the investigation admitting that there is no absolute certainty, experts consulted by the British newspaper also warn that the PRS are used to assess risks in populations, not in individuals, which compromise the precision of these conclusions. Being in the top percentile of genetic risk does not mean a person will develop the condition, even if it is strongly influenced by genetic factors.

And there is a very large “elephant” placed by the analysis in front of the whole world: the possibility of stigmatizationby associating these conditions with the personification of absolute evil that is currently Adolf Hitler.

And other questions are beginning to be raised: to what extent is it legitimate to explore the genetics of historical figures to justify their behavior? To what extent can we use biology to explain moral evil?