Forget Two World Wars and One World Cup . . . Geneticists Reveal 50 Per Cent of Britons Are GERMAN

Allan Hall, Daily Mail (London), June 21, 2011

It may come as a shock to those fond of quoting a world cup triumph and the outcome of two wars as signs of British superiority.

Scientists say that around half of Britons have German blood coursing through their veins.

Anybody who paid attention in their history lessons knows that tribes from northern Europe invaded Britain after the Romans left in around 410AD.

But research by leading geneticists reveals the extent to which the Germans became part of the nation’s racial mix.

Together with archaeologists who have spent years on sites in the UK, they conclude that 50 per cent of us have some German blood.

Biologists at University College in London studied a segment of the Y chromosome that appears in almost all Danish and northern German men–and found it surprisingly common in Great Britain.

Analysis of tooth enamel and bones found in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries supported these results.

German archeologist Heinrich Haerke believes ‘up to 200,000 emigrants’ crossed the North Sea, pillaging and raping and eventually settling.

The native Celts, softened by years of peace under the Romans, were no match for the raiding parties from across the North Sea.

Pottery and jewellery similar to that found in grave sites along the Elbe River in northern Germany has been unearthed in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries here.

There is also evidence the settlers remained in contact with relatives on the Continent for up to three generations.

The findings have caused a certain amount of gloating in Germany.

‘There is no use in denying it,’ wrote news magazine Der Spiegel. ‘It is clear that the nation which most dislikes the Germans were once Krauts themselves. A number of studies reinforce the intimacy of the German-English relationship.’

Anglo-Saxon is a catch-all phrase to refer to the invaders of the fifth and sixth centuries AD.

Angles came from the southern part of the Danish peninsula and gave their name to England and the Saxons came from the north German plain.

There were other tribes–such as the Jutes, from Jutland, who settled in Kent.

The Anglo-Saxons drove the Britons into Cornwall, Wales and the North, but a few centuries later faced waves of invaders themselves–Vikings from Scandinavia and then the Normans in 1066.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • highduke

    Congrats to all Germanics. Time for a NEW sense of pan-Germanic brotherhood to develop because the pre-revisionist model has been rehabilitated for sure now. So much for the ‘anglicized Iberian’ model they saddled you with to take away your Germanic pride. Read Goethe.

  • TTownTony

    Well Duhhhhhh! Anyone with an education knows this. I learned about the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Vikings in the 5th grade back in 1958.

  • Anonymous

    All the more reason to simply say ‘white’ when asked what your ethnic origins are.

  • Southern Hoosier

    I assume they are talking about the white Brits and not the millions of immigrants streaming in from Africa, Asia and the rest of the 3rd World.

  • Anonymous

    Note the suggestive theme: “We all are victims of our rivals and enemies…it renews the blood!”

    Ignoring the fact that these ancient invaders did not replace the English but were themselves assimilated and did so because they were white and their IQ and work ethic was as complimentary as their looks.

    Never mind that Germany is what continues to drive EU-ropes economic engine through the present economic downturn, the Germans were also isolationist until the demands of competing with the English and French as national powers forced them from a Warring States period (1890s) to a full on Monarchial nation state society (1914).

    And why were these marauding ancient Germans on the prowl anyway? Seems the Romans overran so many cultures in the East that when the Asian steppe peoples (i.e. the very genetic roots of much of northern Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran today) made one of their wanderjars in search of loot and pillage, none of the buffer states were strong enough to stop them. The resulting Hunnish terror was so brutal that when the Germans finally finished them at Nedao, there wasn’t a lot left but migratory Schadenfreud. Spreading the pain.

    The medieval period was characterized by brutal wars across the Germanic homelands between residual Hunnish populations, Poles, Rus and Viking cultures in the East, all of which took hundreds of years to ‘assimilate’ into culturally stable enclaves within more or less agreed borders.

    Now you want to force the same mess of needless disruption in an Islamic cultural homeland far away as an excuse to let them invade the West, a people whose populations are -vastly- different in cultural norm and genetic qualities from those of the ‘Asians’ you would have them welcome?

    And you just cannot accept that this is a _bad way forwards_ for the English, so you use this ‘example’ of how things work. Except it’s not an example of SWA’ian culture achieving hegemony by martial dominance but rather an example of western culture being degraded and betrayed by it’s own elites with no more weapons or skill at arms than an airplane ticket.

    In a time of extreme technological sophistication, you are adopting an IQ 84 society from an environmentally and ethnically impoverished landscape and you honestly think that they are like the Germans?!

    The English don’t hate the Germans you frauds. They are scared to death of their Pakistani next door neighbor.

  • Anonymous

    Bryan Sykes is Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Wolfson College. He already debunked this garbage about 5 years ago in a book titled “Blood of the Isles”.

    I wonder why the MSM is pushing all this baloney.

  • Anonymous

    I’m all British (50/50 English/Scottish) heritage — no known German — and this information doesn’t surprise me at all.

    But it does please me. Because despite Der Spiegel’s allegation that the English are “the nation which most dislikes the Germans”, I don’t dislike the Germans at all. Why should I? Me and the Germans have FAR more in common than me and the Ethiopians. Or me and the Syrians. Or the Dominicans. So I’ve got some German blood? Wunderbar! Maybe that means there’s a chance our Jaguars might finally be built with the quality and reliability as their Mercedes and Porsches!

    What Der Spiegel, the Daily Mail, and the rest of the Euro-American lamestream media need to grasp, is that our white nations need to COME TOGETHER AGAINST THE COMMON ENEMY. As one of Limey descent, I want no more disputes with my white German brothers and sisters, nor with my white Irish brothers and sisters, not with my white Russian brothers and sisters, etc. And I mean EVER.

    White people, at an all-time low of 9% of global population, are an endangered species — so we’re all in this together! ALL of us light-skinned peoples are going to have to put aside our differences and band together against… what was that phrase again? Ah yes, “the rising tide of color.”

  • True Blue

    Given that the Angles and the Saxons -Anglo-Saxons were from Germany -Saxony, is this any kind of shock? Like saying that Normans in France have genetic similarities with the Norse who overran Normandy. If there are any Anglo-Saxons left in England that is…

  • Jeddermann.

    “Together with archaeologists who have spent years on sites in the UK, they conclude that 50 per cent of us have some German blood”

    50 % of Americans have some German blood also!

    German blood but from way back when in the case of the English. When we say German we mean much more than merely “blood”. We mean language, culture, ethnicity, and race of course.

    The same way with the English. English means much more than blood. Means language, culture, mores, ethnicity, and yes race.

    English are predominantly a mix of prehistoric, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, French, Nordic, etc. NO ONE denies that – – INDEED the English during the Victorian Era saw themselves as the proper mix of the northern Europeans having gathered together in one people all the positive traits conducive to being THE world power!

  • ghw

    2 — TTownTony wrote at 6:55 PM on June 22:

    Well Duhhhhhh! Anyone with an education knows this. I learned about the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Vikings in the 5th grade back in 1958.

    ………………….

    So did I. But in Europe, such has been the anti-Germanic hatred and propaganda (from the left) that it seems this has been very carefully, and deliberately, swept under the rug. I have met VERY educated Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians who have NO Idea of any Germanic connection whatever. They were baffled as to what I was talking about. They never heard of such a thing.

  • ghw

    4 — Southern Hoosier wrote at 7:29 PM on June 22:

    I assume they are talking about the white Brits

    …….

    Is there any other kind?

  • Anonymous

    All of this just so strongly reinforces my long held gut feeling that it was such an incredibly egregious error on Britain’s part to have fought two wars against Germany in the last century. I can’t think of one single gain, benefit or advantage Britain acquired by fighting Germany, really turning on its own kin. The claim that 50% of Britains are Germanic is ironic because the Kaiser himself was 50% English. When the German chancellor angrily stated that Britain was declaring war on a kindred nation just because of a scrap of paper, he was quite right. Incidentally there was nothing in the treaty of Ghent that said Britain had to declare war.

  • 4th gen

    It would be interesting to see if the same sort of things exists between Japanese and Korean people with the former being once part of the same group as the latter.

    Too bad nationalist politics have oppressed any scientific inquiry into the remains of the ancient Japanese people.

  • anonymous

    Might not be completely true, but it is at least partially. If there is a point, it is that culture also is real.

  • Anonymous

    What’s the big deal? The Royal family has been dominated by Germans since the George I of the House of Hanover succeeded Queen Anne.

    During World War I, the Royals actually changed their last name to Windsor to conform to military propaganda. The Battenbergs became Mountbattens.

  • buridan

    Utterly stupid article.The intellectual/scientific level of a daily newspaper is in general very low, and the Daily Mail is not particulialy highfly.

    That 50% of the British have some Germanic genes is nothing. Maybe 50% of British have some genes from Charlemagne, or from Nero. And a hundred percent of them probably have some genes from “the African Eve”. What has sense is : how much of the British genetic stock comes from Germany/Denmark : what is the proportion of the ancestors of the British who were persons coming from present day Germany/Denmark after the Fall of the Roman Empire ?

    The “200 000” figure is a little more. But 200 000 when there were how many natives ? And with what reproductive success ? (incidentally, the reproductive success of rape, alluded to in the article, was in general probably close to zero)

    AmRen should give us a good vulgarization of the scientific article, not those superficial and stupid articles of the unspecialized press.

  • Tired of It

    “I wonder why the MSM is pushing all this baloney.”

    @ #6-Anonymous: I have a theory. And a hope. But I think the lame stream media knows that the sleeping giant is awakening – the koolaid is starting to wear off and we can see through their lies and propaganda. And we are getting angrier by the day.

  • Kenelm Digby

    ‘Up to 200,000 emigrants crossed the North Sea’.

    The Anglo-Saxon invasion is usually thought of as the defining event in the creation of the English nation.So the scientists tell us that in the entire invasion, (which lasted for decades), only 200,000 Anglo-Saxons ever entered ‘Britania’.

    The Strange and remarkable fact is that under the last Labour government (and now under the Conservatives too), 600,000 immigrants (mostly non-White third worlders) enter Britain *every year!*

    It is obvious to see that Britain’s current immigration wave will have the profoundest and unforseen effects on the future of England.

  • Gavrick

    Excellent news! As an American immigrant to Germany, I always thought that my ancestors were only English. Now I realize why I feel like I am home here.

    Now, if we can just do something about the third-world immigration to Germany, thing would be heavenly!

  • German

    In Germany there are little States:

    One is called Saxon, one Saxon-Anhalt and the other Nieder-Saxon. Saxon is near the Polish border, if you got to north-west, there is Saxon-Anhalt. If you go a little more to the north-west there is Nieder-Saxon.

    And if you go a little more to the north west over the small sea you will be in Britain where people called themselves Anglo-Saxons.

    I noticed this when I was about 10 years old. And I noticed that there must be links. But now we need Scientists and Experts to tell us those thinks.

  • olewhitelady

    I simply cannot believe that most Britons didn’t already know that the non-Celtic makeup of their white population is Germanic. What else could it be? Even the French, for all their cultural difference–and uniqueness–are made up of Germanic Franks and Celtic Gauls.

    How many people in Britain have forgotten that Hitler hoped their nation would join with Germany, against the rest of Europe, because they’re both Germanic–or that Rudolph Hess flew to the island with the same hope?

  • sam

    Just historical fact–I teach this FACT in my English Lit. classes.

  • Fr. John

    Of course, this thought is absolutely ‘Verboten’ in today’s hyper-consciousness re: a war Germany lost, some sixty years ago….

    but, as this is demonstrably true, it would only mean that a certain Austrian Housepainter’s unwillingness to fight his ‘brothers’ in England, sixty years ago…….

    was correct.

    (Ducking from the missles being thrown from the other side of the room).

  • Anonymous

    As someone stated earlier: what else would they be? Slavic? The real question is political: why do so many English/East Coast Americans/Canadians have such a hate on for Germany at this juncture? Perhaps they inhabit dying nations under siege, presided over by neo-liberals; trapped by their own war rhetoric and just grasping at whatever shreds of (war) glory they have left, like the old folks nearing their deathbeds.

  • Cid Campeador

    12 — Anonymous wrote at 11:38 PM on June 22:

    “All of this just so strongly reinforces my long held gut feeling that it was such an incredibly egregious error on Britain’s part to have fought two wars against Germany in the last century. I can’t think of one single gain, benefit or advantage Britain acquired by fighting Germany, really turning on its own kin. The claim that 50% of Britains are Germanic is ironic because the Kaiser himself was 50% English. When the German chancellor angrily stated that Britain was declaring war on a kindred nation just because of a scrap of paper, he was quite right. Incidentally there was nothing in the treaty of Ghent that said Britain had to declare war.”

    RIght you are.

    Also the Entente, in it’s obsession with punishing the Germans in 1918, subjected them to an opressive treaty that was at least partially instrumental in producing Adolf Hitler.

    Not an excuse for Hitler and National Socialism but certainly a reason.

  • Cid Campeador

    12 — Anonymous wrote at 11:38 PM on June 22:

    “All of this just so strongly reinforces my long held gut feeling that it was such an incredibly egregious error on Britain’s part to have fought two wars against Germany in the last century. I can’t think of one single gain, benefit or advantage Britain acquired by fighting Germany, really turning on its own kin. The claim that 50% of Britains are Germanic is ironic because the Kaiser himself was 50% English. When the German chancellor angrily stated that Britain was declaring war on a kindred nation just because of a scrap of paper, he was quite right. Incidentally there was nothing in the treaty of Ghent that said Britain had to declare war.”

    RIght you are.

    Also the Entente, in it’s obsession with punishing the Germans in 1918, subjected them to an opressive treaty that was at least partially instrumental in producing Adolf Hitler.

    Not an excuse for Hitler and National Socialism but certainly a reason.

  • English Tony from NYC

    To posters #5 and #7 in particular.

    Of course the British don’t hate the Germans! From my youth I’ve heard British veterans of both World Wars expressing the greatest respect for the German fighting man.

    If it were Germans who were immigrating to the U.K. (or the U.S.), the anti-immigration movement would evaporate overnight!

  • Anonymous

    Nevertheless, I’ll buy the idea that the Brits are mostly of Old European stock. All ancient accounts agree that Celts and Germans were big and blonde. If that’s so, why are so many Europeans small and dark-haired? I doubt we can call most Englishmen either “Celts” or “Saxons.”

    And at least one Brit is apparently the direct descendant of a man who was buried in a cave 9,000 years ago: http://goo.gl/697IV

  • Spirit Wolf

    First they tell us that race is an illusion, you can’t tell a person’s race from their genes (I know it’s bull.)

    Now here’s an article saying that not only can you tell the differences between races, you can tell the difference between racial sub-groups on the basis of genetic study.

    Who’s trying to eat their cake and have it, too?

  • Anonymous

    Bryan Sykes is Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Wolfson College. He already debunked this garbage about 5 years ago in a book titled “Blood of the Isles”.

    I wonder why the MSM is pushing all this baloney.

    The problem with Sykes’ research is that he doesn’t appear to mention at all if the Germans themselves were related to the British Celts. If they were already related, it would make it seem that the modern-day English are mostly Celtic.

    Besides, the article says that the British gene pool is 50% German. Since 80% of Brits are English, and another 10% are Scots (who have their own Germanic background), that means the English are roughly two-thirds German and one-third Celtic, and not all German. Which makes sense to me.

  • .

    Most of “Blood of the Isles” is outdated, as pop science books tend to quickly become. The British are related to other Northwestern Europeans. Autosomal DNA and mtDNA never supported a close relationship between the British and Iberians. “Celts” are not closely related to Iberians either.

    Sykes, Oppenheimer, and Goldstein were wrong about the age of R1b in Europe and about British and especially “Celtic” R1b Y-chromosomes being supposedly similar to those found in Basques. The English are between the Dutch and Irish genetically and are more similar to Frisians and the Dutch than to Germans proper, but the theory of an “Iberian” origin for any nationality in the UK or Ireland is dead.

  • browser

    18 — Kenelm Digby wrote:

    “The Anglo-Saxon invasion is usually thought of as the defining event in the creation of the English nation.”

    __ __ __

    Yes! Exactly. Unlike the Roman or Norman invasions, the Anglo-Saxons didn’t CHANGE the “English nation”, they CREATED IT.

    It was a totally new civilization from the ground up, just as the Pilgrims who settled in New England did not merge with the Indians — they replaced them.

    In fact, the New England colonists were simply doing what their ancestors had done in Britain a thousand years before: making a fresh start with new stock.

    Now, it seems that the social engineers and PC revisionists are asserting that the A-S were just another group in a long list of “immigrants” who blended in. No, they were not immigrants who blended in; they displaced the old and created their own entirely new society.

  • ATBOTL

    The article depicts what happened as being similar to when Spaniards settled Mexico, with males from the conquering group having much more reproductive success than indigenous males.

    Notice on the map the genetic evidence of the Irish migration to Scotland centered around the Firth of Lorn.

  • Anonymous

    If the naysayers are correct, that the “Isles” are some splendiferous racial isolate with only minor infusions of Frisian Dutch (not Deutsch, of course) DNA, then why are most White separatist/advocacy orgs. headed by those of Isles’ descent (i.e. Mr. Black, Mr. Duke, Mr. Taylor, etc.) who are not terribly representative of the bulk of the White race?

  • Browser

    “Sykes, Oppenheimer, and Goldstein were wrong about the age of R1b in Europe and about British and especially “Celtic” R1b Y-chromosomes being supposedly similar to those found in Basques.”

    What makes the above people such experts on British blood? In fact, what is their underlying motivating interest in this? I would tend to be very suspicious about their full objectivity in this matter, just as I would be about Stephen Jay Gould in the USA, Jared Diamond, et al., who (we now know) had their own personal agendas to push.

    Frankly, I am leery when OTHER people try to tell me who I am and where I came from. They are going to tell you what they want you to believe. And it will be what’s good for THEM, not you.

  • Yandul Phu

    “It would be interesting to see if the same sort of things exists between Japanese and Korean people with the former being once part of the same group as the latter.”

    – That IS the case, based on the consensus of most anthropologists studying the 2 groups, that the Japanese are derived from a strain of ancient Koreans. However, there are some Japanese anthropologists who have constructed a less empirically-backed version claiming that the Koreans came from the Japanese, which seems to at least have popular support in Japan.

  • Geoff

    You unt I Tommy – ve are zr same.

    Seriously though, is it any surprise that peoples who lived only a couple of hundred miles apart should, over millenia, have mixed?