What do you think about the claim that Germans are Turks?

[Anonymous]

Hello to everyone interested in the science of origin :). Today's research topic is the topic of the origin of the British, and therefore the German people.

THE ANCESTORS OF THE GERMANS ARE TURKS.",
and it is the German linguist Klaus Dieckmann who says this:
"The Greek and Roman writers have left very vague and prejudiced things in their reviews of the Germans. Thus Tacitus, in his "Germania", idealized the natives of central and Northern Europe, but without the readings of civilization. No one came across the idea that the Germans were related to the Turks. As I was dealing with Turkish, I noticed more and more grammatical and lexical similarities... I assume that our ancestors listened to the Turkic peoples, who were overlaid by Indo-Europeans from the south. Their language must come from an ancient one, the mother of all European languages."

[NamerOfStars]

Wrong on all three counts. The British are Celts, not Germans; we diverged almost ten thousand years ago. The Germans are not Turks; they split off a few thousand years before. And there was never a "mother of all European languages"; the Kurgan hypothesis only works if you ignore history and don't know a damn thing about human psychology.

Forcing a people to adopt your language is only to happen under two circumstances: either they somehow don't have a language, which isn't going to happen to ANY group of humans less then 100,000 years old, or you bring in enough force to subjugate them entirely without destroying them AND without subsuming them, and then stick around long enough to make sure they don't change things as soon as your back is turned.

That would require an empire large enough to stretch across the entirety of Eurasia, with enough people to occupy and control literally everywhere at once, who somehow never bothered to go back into Africa, and who disappeared while leaving absolutely no trace of their presence.

[Asker]

I'm not saying this, a German linguist says this, man. Every nation has an ancestor, the Samis (Arabs and Jews) have Sam, the Hamis (today's Africans) have Ham, the Turks have an ancestor called Yafes, but there is no common ancestor in history with the name German, that's the whole problem. If you show me an ancestor with the English name, I can accept it. Germans may have left the mainland centuries ago and migrated to another civilization, but that doesn't change the fact that they are Germans. I think that's the way it is, man..

[NamerOfStars]

Using the Bible for not history, but GENETIC history? This is a new low.

[NamerOfStars]

You claim that the entire population of Africa is descending from one person who lived what would've been less than five thousand years ago, despite human fossils literally six hundred forty times older than that being found IN AFRICA. You claim that a single ancestor was the father of both Jews and Arabs (technically correct), but claim that it's the brother of the ancestor of an entire continent, flowing from a story that flies in the face of basic genetic versatility known thousands of years ago- long before those three guys, in fact.

Germans did indeed leave "the mainland" (I'm assuming you mean Eurasia); they went to Britain, and became the ancestors of the English, as distinct from the British. There was no one person named "German", because that word doesn't come from German, but from French. Likewise, there was no person named "Turk" who was the ancestor of the Turks, nor ones called "Sam" or "Ham", who fathered the ethnic groups you've conveniently renamed after them. As shocking as it seems, people don't rename themselves in languages they don't speak.

That is emphatically NOT the way it is; that's the way you want it to be. Don't confuse the two.