German GEDmatch results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

I can connect to that aspect. I'm not so keen on in emphasizing the Germanic narrative, because this is mostly overrated in it's weight anyhow. But actually there is an ancestral commonality to the whole German people (except maybe Upper Silesians that where Polish speakers at abt. 1900 AD)

---

What about the Ruhrpolen (who came from all of eastern provinces)? There were over 450,000 of them in 1910 (and probably already some were assimilated by that time, while others continued coming later). Add also Lithuanians & Masurians from East Prussia, Wends from eastern Pommern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Listen, my comment wasn't about what is worse - Nazism vs Communism. Don't try to pull your Russophobia on me or I will avoid you and won't engage with you. For example I stopped talking to P. months ago for other reasons but one thing I've barely gotten from him is Russophobia. His attitude towards Germany is none of my business. I'm positive towards both countries, probably more pro-German than many Germans themselves today.

---

Errrr ... what? :confused: I've just mentioned the reality of Soviet Russia which is true. Where do you see any Russophobia? Russians killed or starved to death directly or indirectly way more Russian citizens than Germans did. It is you who distorted my message trying to overwrite your own interpretation.

Quote:

---

Such (political) convictions set the stage for decades of murder on an industrial scale. In total, no fewer than 20 million Soviet citizens were put to death by the regime or died as a direct result of its repressive policies

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

I don't think so - for example my family only had casualties caused by the Germans.

I guess it would have to be counted family by family. There has been such an effort:

https://straty.pl/ - everyone can submit their own dead relatives here

---

I did not mean Poland though, but Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

It's appropriate that ethnic Germans call Germany the Fatherland (or they used to), because their genetic relationship is a mostly paternal one. (...)

---

Left beside the cause for the German term Vaterland, why do you consider that the relationship would be mostly paternally? It would make sense as migrations regularly are more carried out by men than by women and there was an expansion of Germanics within later German people emergence area. But do you have facts that support that, f. i. that there is a bigger commonality in Y DNA than in mtDNA among Germans compared to among Englishmen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

But it would fulfill, though big, your requirement for a "nation proper" in the aspect of homogeneity.

---

Not really, because the 'Australian nation' includes people of many different ethnicities/origins, and not even the ethnic core of British/Irish descended people is what I would consider a true nation , for the same reason I don't consider British in the UK a proper nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

If I skip all my rejecting comments on this scenario and strictly stick to your theoretical question, I'd answer that with: yes, I think so.

We will likely also deal with the topic of relatedness in this conext. But I'd like to add another aspect of a people ("nation proper") that I think is important and that's the aspect of a reproductive community (Fortpflanzungsgemeinschaft). Imo this is maybe even the most important aspect of a people (nation proper). If you run a reproduction community for quite a while this will end up in a mutual relatedness.

---

OK, we just have a different view on nationhood then. Fair enough. I call these existing countries nations anyway, just of different categories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy

Errrr ... what? :confused: I've just mentioned the reality of Soviet Russia which is true. Where do you see any Russophobia? Russians killed or starved to death directly or indirectly way more Russian citizens than Germans did.

---

Soviet is not the same thing as Russian. Most of the victims were Russians/Slavs themselves. The communist elite before WW2 had a lot of non-Russians (vastly overrepresented). Including some Poles for that matter. But mostly other groups.

That original post of mine was about WW2 specifically. Not about the 20th century in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

It would make sense as migrations regularly are more carried out by men than by women

---

Depends on times. There is no such rule IMO.

In ancient times entire tribes usually migrated. When the Cimbri and Teutones invaded Rome, it was a huge hord with 50% men 50% women (but the latter mostly stayed behind rather, maybe only some took part in battle - of course later they were slaughtered anyway by victorious legions).

I don't know if your "regularly" even applies to modern times. F.i. English settlement in North America was gender-balanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leto

Soviet is not the same thing as Russian. Most of the victims were Russians/Slavs themselves. The communist elite before WW2 had a lot of non-Russians (vastly overrepresented). Including some Poles for that matter. But mostly other groups.

That original post of mine was about WW2 specifically. Not about the 20th century in general.

---

Ok, I get you now. :) Btw. I did mention in my first reply that the majority of early communists were Jews, and not even Slavs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy

Ok, I get you. :) Btw. I did mention in my first reply that the majority of early communists were Jews, and not even Slavs.

---

All right. A bit of overreaction on my part and I shouldn't have mentioned the Nazis. Although I do find it fascinating that Germany and Austria have so much Slavic influence genetically. IMO the Dutch are more Germanic than Germans themselves!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

Left beside the cause for the German term Vaterland, why do you consider that the relationship would be mostly paternally? It would make sense as migrations regularly are more carried out by men than by women and there was an expansion of Germanics within later German people emergence area. But do you have facts that support that, f. i. that there is a bigger commonality in Y DNA than in mtDNA among Germans compared to among Englishmen?

---

I don't have comparative stats at hand, forgive me, and I wasn't referring specifically to haplogroups, but it's fairly logical to say that when you compare Germany to England - in England just as in Germany you have a majority Germanic paternal ancestry, but among all Englishmen the maternal ancestry is overwhelmingly from the same native Celtic Britons. In Germany the maternal ancestry will vary from mostly Germanic in the Northwest, mostly Celtic in the Southwest, and mostly Slavic in the East. I could be wrong but that's what it seems to be, and that's reflected in the autosomal differences. With regards to Great Britain as a whole, as opposed to Germany, the main thing that links English, Welsh and Scottish, and the British abroad, is their common Brittonic maternal origins, while Germans are linked by their common paternal origins. So you could make an argument that's why Britishness is associated maternally (mother country), and personified with the female Britannia. As an aside the Australian national anthem (long version) refers to England as Fatherland, in contrast to how Australians commonly call Britain the mother country. The Welsh national anthem is also 'Land of My Fathers'.