The issue is one of being a joo. That speculation is entirely incorrect. The Historians should've just stuck with the two brothers - but then no-one could spend decades speculating on hidden joo-ish ancestry. Leopold Frankenberger can be entirely dismissed as whole cloth fabrication. The only two that merit discussion are the Brothers. Neither are joo-s. Wikipedia, unfortunately includes discredited OSS/CIA propaganda as previously mentioned. Even the joo DNA article admits itself to be inconclusive speculative conflation.
The simple truth/ ozzcam razor is Maria Schicklgruber conceived through an affair with a married Man and named his brother on the certificate. Then later, sent the boy to live with the 'Uncle' and his Family.
If you could actually substantiate anything else that fits the time period - Provably No joo-s living in Graz - having to declare to the Duchy if you left the Province - Change of Address on Banking accounts if leaving the Province - Actual names or addresses of some imaginary wealthy joo etc - than i'm all ears. There is Zero evidence either Brothers were joo-s either nor any of the living Family members that provided DNA - except from the HALF SISTER of Hitler.
>The issue is one of being a joo. That speculation is entirely incorrect.
To answer this question we would need to know who was his paternal grandfather... And we don't...
Again, based on the actual evidence, the two Brothers are the only two choices using reason and logic - there is no other credible evidence for anything else. Zero evidence the Brothers were joo-s. Zero. Others can continue to speculate on deliberate OSS/CIA substantiation written by a joo.
EDIT. Simple Circular Marxist inspired logic fallacy.
Just because your Grand mother said your Grand father wasn't a joo , how do we really really know he wasn't. Just bc your Grandmother said she didn't have an affair with a wealthy joo, how do we really really know she's telling the truth. Just because DNA evidence doesn't substantiate our claim , how can you really really be sure that the DNA isn't just wrong. Despite all documented evidence to the contrary, how can you really really rule out the possibility of our claim being true... Straight from the Ministry of Truth - 'The truth is what we declare it to be' .
'
Again, based on the actual evidence, the two Brothers are the only two choices using reason and logic
Your "logic and reason" is flawed; you can't tell for sure there's only two choices, there could be a third you know nothing about, and that's a fact
You're merely equating absence of evidence to evidence of absence here
(post is archived)