In the first part of this article, I have debunked the claim by Channel 4’s ‘experts’ that Adolf Hitler had the rare genetic condition Kallmann’s Syndrome and shown that despite their claims to the contrary: the historical and physical evidence directly contradicts such a claim. (1)
Now since their assertion is based on genetic analysis of DNA that Channel 4 claims is Hitler’s we need to look at this in some detail.
Philip Oltermann writing in ‘The Guardian’ does a good job of summarizing the Channel 4 documentary’s basis for their ‘genetic analysis’, which he explains as follows:
‘Airing just over 10 years later, the producers of this new programme at least made sure to answer the “is it possible” bit. Inside an obscure military history museum in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, they managed to track down a blood-drenched swatch of fabric cut by a US soldier from the sofa on which Hitler killed himself. In their attempt to authenticate the blood, they failed to get a fresh DNA sample from any of Hitler’s surviving relatives in Austria and the US, who are all understandably reluctant about media exposure.
But a Hitler male-line relative’s swab collected 10 years earlier (by a Belgian journalist investigating a rumour that the German dictator had fathered an illegitimate son during the first world war) yielded a perfect Y-chromosome match. Whether they got the relative’s permission to use his DNA for this purpose is unclear. Still, they knew they had Hitler’s blood, and could squeeze it for genetic information.’ (2)
Oltermann also does a good job of explaining that the bulk of Channel 4’s ‘Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator’ is devoted not to the interesting if rather niche subject of Hitler’s health and medical conditions, but rather to attacking Hitler in the classic vein of the ‘Hitler had one ball’ theory that was promoted by Freudians from the 1940s right though to the 1970s and 1980s and has long been considered utterly debunked.
He writes:
‘The programme insinuates that what justifies it peeking into Hitler’s pants is that he “was so keen to hide” something, such as by asking for his body to be burned after his death. This is an odd argument: historians mostly agree that this came upon hearing news of Mussolini’s dead body being paraded in public – rather than a fear that Channel 4 will one day measure his member.
But there is a better argument to be made: that these medical conditions can help our understanding of Hitler’s psychology. Did he transform a sense of personal deficit, perhaps influenced by fluctuating testosterone levels, into an ideological cause? Did the Nazi führer have an inability to establish sexual connections that he compensated by marrying himself to the Fatherland?
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”.’ (3)
We can thus see that the point of Channel 4’s ‘Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator’ was not to make an interesting documentary but rather to create a full-scale character assassination based on – what we can already see just from Oltermann’s description is – dubious evidence at best dressed up like it was a ‘scientific investigation’.
But what about the genetic analysis using the samples that Channel 4 dug up, and which was performed ‘under the supervision’ of Turi King?
Well, the problem with this is in the origin of samples used both of Hitler’s alleged blood and the validation sample that was in fact acquired from Belgian journalist Paul Mulders – Oltermann’s ‘Belgian journalist’ – who with Belgian customs official and amateur historian Marc Vermeeren published their own genetic study of Hitler’s alleged DNA in 2010 based on ‘samples from 39 of his living relatives’ but was in fact almost entirely based on the alleged DNA of Hitler’s grand-nephew Alexander Stuart-Houston (this is probably why all of Hitler’s living relatives refused to have anything whatsoever to do with the new Channel 4 documentary). (4)
The problem with this study is as I have explained previously and in detail below:
‘The second argument - as advanced by Mulders and Vermeeren - is also dubious in the extreme. Our intrepid duo - who remind me more of Thompson and Thompson than Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson - claim that they tracked down 39 of Hitler’s living relatives using genetics. The only actual relative they actually name is Alexander Stuart-Houston - Hitler’s grand-nephew - who they admit to having taken DNA from for testing without knowledge or consent. That we don’t know who the rest of the ‘Hitler relatives’ they have allegedly taken genetic material from are throws a problematic light on their conclusions such as they are.
We simply don’t have any idea who these people are or what - or even if - they have any indirect familial relationship to Hitler. Ironically, we also only have Mulders’ word for it is Stuart-Houston’s DNA that he took from a discarded serviette. After all one wonders how Mulders specifically acquired said serviette and how on earth we can be sure that the genetic material is actually Stuart-Houston’s? Since we don’t know who the other donors are either it makes the whole ‘study’ a somewhat hilarious farce from the get-go because the genetic material has not been kept free of potential - and even probable - contamination (thus is completely inadmissible).
This is in spite of all the usual weasel words from our two budding forensics boffins that they had ‘taken all possible care’ to keep the samples ‘free of contamination’. This is, of course, clearly nonsense given what we are told about the only identified contributor (and an unknowing one at that) of genetic material to their ‘study’.
What does this mean?
In effect the likely contamination of the sample means that anything Mulders and Vermeeren claim is de facto unreliable because they have no actual proof (i.e., anything linking it to Stuart-Houston) of who the genetic material comes from.
This is before we even note that their methodology is clearly faulty given that they could and should - had been they been reputable historians as opposed to a publicity-seeking hack and a customs official - have requested genetic material be extracted from one of Hitler’s teeth that are still in his skull (which has been identified primarily through its fairly unique dentistry) as opposed to trying to claim an ancestor’s genetic origins based on the genetics of his descendants.
You might ask why this is such a stupid thing to do and this is really because in order to establish Hitler’s genetic make-up we need his own genetic material if it is available (which it is) and if not then we would need reliable genetic material from all of Hitler’s direct descendants and relatives up to him. The reason we would need this is really very simple: we simply do not know if the claimed father of a person is actually the father historically speaking.
Hitler himself is a good case in point in that the two most probable candidates for being his biological grandfather are either his official grandfather (Johann Georg Hiedler) or his grandfather’s brother (Johann von Nepomuk Huetler). There is simply no other serious candidate in the field and of the two Nepomuk seems the most likely given Hiedler’s general rejection of Alois and Nepomuk’s general acceptance of him.
We cannot absolutely prove this either way of course, but we can narrow the field by using the historical documentation and thought experiment to eliminate all the other candidates.
Simply put: you cannot claim that an ancestor is proven to be something because their descendants are something because you do not know what has happened in terms of sexual activity in-between unless you can establish the genetic line up to the individual concerned (i.e., you need direct not indirect descent), which Mulders and Vermeeren cannot do without Hitler’s actual genetic material because Hitler fathered no children.
This means in effect that Mulders and Vermeeren have no genetic case whatsoever to make the claims they do about Hitler’s genetic origins: although they don’t let genetics stand in the way of their broad claims.’ (5)
The point being that Mulders and Vermeeren’s sample is allegedly from Alexander Stuart-Houston – Hitler’s grandnephew via his elder half-brother Alois Hitler Jr. and his Irish wife Bridget Hitler (nee Bridget Dowling) and their son William Stuart-Houston (born William Hitler) – and has clearly been subject to cross-contamination of some sort given the serviette/paper towel it was allegedly from – and remember these are grabbed by multiple people just to put them on a table - it was apparently dropped on the ground by Alexander Stuart-Houston before being subsequently retrieved by Mulders and Vermeeren. Who then basically claim that they played CSI before they sent it to the lab, but – as we’ve already seen – this is clearly nonsense and we only have their word for what they did (and didn’t do) with the serviette/paper towel allegedly used by Alexander Stuart-Houston.
Using the Mulders and Vermeeren’s sample to validate the ‘blood from the sofa fabric’ from a Gettysburg military history museum on the Y chromosome that Channel 4 and King claim to have conducted is superficially quite convincing especially since they bizarrely claim in the documentary that it was a ‘perfect match’.
This is however impossible due to the fact that in the process of human reproduction DNA shuffles around when the best you can expect is a ‘very close match’ with a direct relative let alone a non-lineal relative such as Alexander Stuart-Houston suggesting that Channel 4 and King are engaging in propaganda as well as quite possibly hiding something far more damaging.
The problem you see is that Channel 4 and King’s analysis claims that Hitler was of pure Austrian/German ancestry – (6) which makes perfect sense and is what Hitler biographers have long suspected to be true – but Mulders and Vermeeren’s 2010 study using their sample – which remember was allegedly a ‘perfect match’ on the Y-chromosome to the DNA that Channel 4 and King allegedly extracted from ‘blood from the sofa fabric’ from the museum in Gettysburg – concluded that Hitler had ‘substantial jewish/North African DNA’. (7)
This is a direct contradiction in terms as both claims are based on two different genetic studies using genetic material which is a ‘perfect match’ (or even a very close one) cannot be true suggesting that one or both of them is lying and/or mistaken.
Why this is such is an issue is because the Channel 4 and King genetic claim is entirely dependent for its provenance and link to Hitler on the Mulders and Vermeeren sample, but if the genetic studies on each sample contradict each other than someone is mistaken.
However as stated if we said that the Mulders and Vermeeren study was mistaken – as I am sure many will automatically try to quickly claim – the result of this claim is that it throws out Channel 4 and King’s claim that the Y-chromosome DNA was a ‘perfect match’ – since they cannot be if this is true (it wouldn’t be true anyway but I digress) - and thus also renders the DNA from ‘blood from the sofa fabric’ as being completely unlinked to Hitler and thus just allegedly Hitler’s blood not actually Hitler’s blood which then renders Channel 4’s documentary ‘Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator’ as ‘Blood from a Random Sofa: Hitler’s Alleged DNA’ instead.
If we claimed – on no evidence mind you – that Mulders and Vermeeren’s study was simply mistaken – I actually don’t call into question the study but rather that it was based on a nonsense sample that we have no evidence was in any way related to Hitler and/or was heavily contaminated at point of collection – then we are still faced with the problem of validation and that – at absolute best – the entirety of the study would have to be replicated to see whose results were accurate because no the veracity of both studies is called into question because they contradict one another.
But how were they a ‘perfect match’?
The problem is difficult to answer and is why I pointed out that I think Channel 4 and King are hiding something – the world of Hitler biographic research is littered with propaganda and fake claims that sound superficially plausible unless you know enough about the evidence that they are based on to debunk them (for example the ‘Hitler was a homosexual’ claim) – (8) because if Channel 4 and King’s genetic study was a ‘perfect match’ to Mulders and Vermeeren’s genetic study then it shouldn’t have concluded the opposite, but it did.
Therefore, something is – as they say – ‘rotten in Denmark’ but as to exactly what I couldn’t say and only Channel 4 and King would know, but that something is obviously wrong and incorrect somewhere in their ‘study’ is obvious and should have immediately triggered concerns about there being scientific fraud or mistakes somewhere but yet it did not and they simply charged forward in libelling Hitler with unsupported and dare I say outlandish nonsense about rare medical conditions that he simply did not have. (9)
Now the last issue we have is the ‘blood from the sofa fabric’ that is alleged by Channel 4 and King to come from Hitler’s sitting room in the Fuhrerbunker where Hitler committed suicide by pistol and cyanide capsule on 30th April 1945.
The problem – which even Channel 4 and King are well-aware of and try to deflect by using Mulders and Vermeeren’s alleged genetic sample from Alexander Stuart-Houston to ‘validate the blood is Hitler’s’ and thus prove the blood-stained fabric came from a sofa in Hitler’s sitting room in the Fuhrerbunker.
Now given that – as we have already seen – this genetic validation is nonsense and actually disproved there being a link between the two samples rather than proved it. It is worth pointing out the nonsensical nature of the story of how the ‘blood-stained fabric’ got to the military museum in Gettysburg.
This is simply that a US soldier arrived in Berlin was then shown the ‘sofa Hitler had committed suicide on’ by a Soviet soldier and then cut out part of it – one of the bloody parts apparently – as a souvenir which he then took home, and which eventually ended up in the military museum in Gettysburg.
The issue you see is that it was only Soviet troops who took Berlin in April to May 1945 during the bloody and vicious Battle of Berlin not American troops who only arrived in the city two months later in July 1945 after the partitioning of the city had been agreed between the Allied powers and the Soviet Union.
This would have meant that the US soldier was entering Berlin long after the events of Hitler’s suicide and long after the Soviet security and intelligence services NKVD/SMERSH – as well as ordinary Soviet soldiers – had ransacked the Fuhrerbunker for anything relating to Hitler, which may well have included Hitler’s sofa.
What this means is that this fabric coming from the sofa in Hitler’s sitting room in the Fuhrerbunker is at best extremely unlikely and requires substantial evidentiary support to even be considered credible.
It is also worth noting that if we look at a map of the Fuhrerbunker in 1945 we can see multiple sites that likely had sofas: (10)
These include but aren’t limited to:
Hitler’s Bedroom
Hitler’s Sitting Room
Eva Brauns’s Bedroom
Martin Bormann’s Office
Joseph and Magda Goebbels’ Bedroom
The Conference Room
The Doctor’s Office
The Goebbels Family Rooms
The Emergency Housing Rooms
We even have a photo of a sofa in one of these offices in the Fuhrerbunker: (11)
It is also worth noting that the decoration on this sofa looks nothing like that from the museum in Gettysburg, so it is a different sofa entirely in the Fuhrerbunker, which further informs us that there were multiple sofas in the Fuhrerbunker.
We should further note that we know of multiple people who committed suicide in the Fuhrerbunker before it fell to the Red Army: many by gunshot just like Hitler.
Examples include:
Naval Attache Alwin-Broder Albrecht
General Wilhelm Burgdorf
General Hans Krebs
SS-Brigadefuhrer Franz Schädle
So put another way: we have multiple sofas in the Fuhrerbunker and we also have multiple German personnel who committed suicide by gunshot in the Fuhrerbunker – and who may well have done so on one of the multiple sofas there – which are equally as likely candidates for being the origins of the fabric with the blood on it that Channel 4 and King as well as the museum in Gettysburg claim was ‘Hitler’s blood on his sitting room sofa from the Fuhrerbunker’.
There is also a very real possibility that the fabric comes from something else entirely and that the blood on it isn’t Hitler’s and that – assuming the story told by the museum in Gettysburg is correct (and I suspect it is as it has a certain ring of truth to it) – the US soldier was ‘sold a lemon’ in 1945 by a Soviet soldier in exchange for something such as cigarettes or rations for example.
Thus, we can see that in the foregoing analysis we have completely debunked the entire genetic ‘analysis’ performed by Channel 4 and Turi King in ‘Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator’ and exposed the documentary as a mendacious and deliberate fraud meant as an anti-Hitler smear and an indirect assault on the rising tide of National Socialism and Nationalism across the West.
References
(1) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/did-adolf-hitler-have-kallmanns-syndrome
(2) https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/nov/13/did-hitler-really-have-a-micropenis-hitlers-dna-channel-4-documentary
(3) Idem.
(4) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305414/Hitler-descended-Jews-Africans-DNA-tests-reveal.html
(5) For the full article complete with citations see: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-adolf-hitler-of-jewish-or-rothschild
(6) https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/nov/13/did-hitler-really-have-a-micropenis-hitlers-dna-channel-4-documentary
(7) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305414/Hitler-descended-Jews-Africans-DNA-tests-reveal.html
(8) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/was-adolf-hitler-a-homosexual
(9) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/did-adolf-hitler-have-kallmanns-syndrome
(10) https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/hitlers-death-in-the-fuhrerbunker/
(11) Idem.