How 85 Jews captured 9000 Italian troops in Bardia, Libya in WWII

[p(-)0ENiX]

Regarding genetics and racial differences, they do exist, because if they didn't then we'd all be the exact same copy of each other and we'd all be equally smart/intelligent and ignorant/dumb. However, genetics is not my strong subject but i do know that @p(-)0ENiX is knowledgeable in this regard and i would appreciate his valuable input.

Technically, it's possible for a smaller group of soldiers to defeat a larger group provided the circumstances are right, but I can't determine the validity of this incident. If true, then it's obvious that the Italian officers in charge of the garrisons made a foolish mistake, & failed to analyse the strength & tactics of their enemy or even adequately react & launch an offensive to the threat of the captured blockhouse. As far as the abilities of the Italian people are concerned, then the Roman Empire is evidence of their capabilities in warfare & governing. In the days of the ancient Roman Republic, foreigners were not involved in warfare & it was primarily Roman citizens that did most of the fighting, earning a great reputation for themselves. However, it's true that the Romans learnt from foreign people near them, both in terms of technology & warfare. Their approach to warfare was quite holistic in the sense that they didn't look for one killing tactic. Instead, the Romans used various tactics in coordination resulting in a well organised & disciplined fighting force. The truth is that any nation can excel at warfare provided their training, discipline, technology, strategy, tactics, & morale is up to the mark.

As for genetics, I am more interested in population origins than racial differences themselves, but yeah, I do agree that racial differences exist, the most obvious one being the phenotype of the primary races. All of those differences are determined by genes, in fact anger as an emotion too relates to an individual's genes. Human social behaviour itself tends to somewhat relate to genes & is quite likely to have evolved differently in various races. In other words, there was significant evolution among humans after leaving Africa, & evolution among all organisms is going on as we speak. This article, which is essentially a review of a new book is very interesting, & let's not forget that political correctness causes trouble when discussing this sensitive topic. I haven't read the book "A Troublesome Inheritance" yet, but it's bound to be interesting especially as research in the subject continues to take place.

 

[KingMamba]

It broke no forum rules? Then why do the mods intervene in cases of hate speech? And as for it being an accurate historical account, the hateful part was not the authenticity of 6 million Jews being killed in prison camps, but of the deeply offensive embellishments that he attached. I am utterly surprised that you and @Mastan Khan are defending it. This is indecent and filthy language to use about helpless victims, men, women and children alike. What sort of animal brings in their cruel death to rebut somebody's account of a battle where people of their race were involved?

Incidentally, I have used negative ratings in the past solely against hateful passages by Hindutvavadis. Why is it that you neither of you had anything to say on those occasions? Why is it that being averse to Hindu bigots is all right, but being averse to anti-Semitic bigots suddenly stirs your sense of propriety?

I have not come across any of the other negatives you have given and they are irrelevant to this one. Quite frankly I have seen worse language go unpunished and did not see how his post broke forum rules. Was it hateful... yes but if hate speech was against forum rules most of the posters here would have been sent packing long ago.

Just because I had a problem with the negative does not mean I endorsed his post although yes it was true that 6 million Jews died without much of a fight like he said.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have not come across any of the other negatives you have given and they are irrelevant to this one. Quite frankly I have seen worse language go unpunished and did not see how his post broke forum rules. Was it hateful... yes but if hate speech was against forum rules most of the posters here would have been sent packing long ago.

Just because I had a problem with the negative does not mean I endorsed his post although yes it was true that 6 million Jews died without much of a fight like he said.

After reading your post, your earlier one, I went back to the Wrong Post Rating forum and did some digging around. I believe I was correct in this instance, although I also believe that we should move this discussion to that forum if we are not to get a negative rating ourselves, or if we are not to exasperate each other to the point where we award each other at least one apiece!

My other negatives are not irrelevant, insofar as they give a clue to the general intentions and probable motivation of the awards. Second, two wrongs don't make a right; seeing worse language go unpunished is not a reason for not punishing this language.

Regarding hate speech, are such instances not reported, and generally, when justified, not punished? I agree that it could be even stricter, harsher, but the disapproval of hate speech clearly exists.

Finally, if I implied that you approved his post, it was not the intent; I was addressing your disagreement with the negative award, not your possible position on the facts themselves.

If we are to engage in further exchanges on this topic, I suggest, in a spirit of self-preservation, that we shift venues.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have not come across any of the other negatives you have given and they are irrelevant to this one. Quite frankly I have seen worse language go unpunished and did not see how his post broke forum rules. Was it hateful... yes but if hate speech was against forum rules most of the posters here would have been sent packing long ago.

Just because I had a problem with the negative does not mean I endorsed his post although yes it was true that 6 million Jews died without much of a fight like he said.

1)Personal attacks/slangs
2)One linear trolls
3)Abusing someone's nationality
4)Statements such as:
-Pakistan is a failed state
-India is a rapist country or 'salay Indian rapiests'
5)Post consists of 'harassing material'
6)Celebrating someone's death unless he is TTP terrorists.

@king Mamba

Abusing someone's nationality?
Celebrating someone's death?

 

[KingMamba]

1)Personal attacks/slangs
2)One linear trolls
3)Abusing someone's nationality
4)Statements such as:
-Pakistan is a failed state
-India is a rapist country or 'salay Indian rapiests'
5)Post consists of 'harassing material'
6)Celebrating someone's death unless he is TTP terrorists.

@king Mamba

Abusing someone's nationality?
Celebrating someone's death?

Jew is not a nationality and he was being a sarcastic dick but he was not celebrating in that particular post. That being said I have seen posts where he openly celebrates such things which undoubtedly deserve a negative. Anyway that was my opinion of your negative not of the post itself and I am not inclined to defend that punk so let us just drop it because it does not seem like it bothered him anyway.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@king Mamba

Appreciate your views. They are always thought-provoking, even when they are most opposed to my own.

 

[iajj]

Judging by your posts, you are quite eloquent. It's troubling that an intelligent person like yourself can be so unabashedly racist.

i am open to civil and intelligent speech of racism and antiracism. i ask for only articulation and despise intellectual laziness that falls far short of courage. i always draw clear lines of racist attacks and country-based attacks: i mock and attack vietnam, india, europe, but these attacks stem from political differences between these countries and mine, but my views of jews, turkics and anglosaxons are informed not by geopolitical imperatives but an urgent need to defend politics against forces and ideologies clearly alien and hostile to it, and i attribute this to the rootlessness of these races, their unique racisms, their unique doctrines, and their unique technologies. i am willing to be persuaded otherwise by an antiracist of superior intelligence, but not of fashionable hacks like @Joe Shearer who talk about forum rules (as if i cared) and spew meaningless tautologies and hackneyed idomatics and unfounded fears

 

[Joe Shearer]

i am open to civil and intelligent speech of racism and antiracism. i ask for only articulation and despise intellectual laziness that falls far short of courage. i always draw clear lines of racist attacks and country-based attacks: i mock and attack vietnam, india, europe, but these attacks stem from political differences between these countries and mine, but my views of jews, turkics and anglosaxons are informed not by geopolitical imperatives but an urgent need to defend politics against forces and ideologies clearly alien and hostile to it, and i attribute this to the rootlessness of these races, their unique racisms, their unique doctrines, and their unique technologies. i am willing to be persuaded otherwise by an antiracist of superior intelligence, but not of fashionable hacks like @Joe Shearer who talk about forum rules (as if i cared) and spew meaningless tautologies and hackneyed idomatics and unfounded fears

There is no response required to this venomous outpouring. Look at the content:

• fashionable hacks
• talk about forum rules (as if i cared)
• spew meaningless tautologies
• hackneyed idomatics
• unfounded fears

Besides being a string of abuse strung together, what more is it? How does it add value to any discussion?

 

[iajj]

There is no response required to this venomous outpouring. Look at the content:

• fashionable hacks
• talk about forum rules (as if i cared)
• spew meaningless tautologies
• hackneyed idomatics
• unfounded fears

Besides being a string of abuse strung together, what more is it? How does it add value to any discussion?

i offered you a chance to state your reasons for your hatred of racism. you confessed you couldn't and that your hatred of antisemitism was purely dogmatic. now it is just me affording you some insults to your dogmatism and low intelligence - you expected different?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I thought pointing out that something was racist was sufficient, and that racism is hateful. Now that I know you don't think so, I will be careful. I will also not, by the same token, assume that you hate murder, incest, child abuse, rape, and the like. Nothing to be taken for granted. I will also reply you on the question of racism after I have put my thoughts together. It is unexpected to be asked to defend what seems to be an obvious position.

 

[jandk]

i offered you a chance to state your reasons for your hatred of racism. you confessed you couldn't and that your hatred of antisemitism was purely dogmatic. now it is just me affording you some insults to your dogmatism and low intelligence - you expected different?

Rootlessness does not have much meaning. All of human history is about migration and dispossession. Some groups were better at this than others. The Turkics stand out in history for being able to dispossess a huge portion of humanity while migrating from the Gobi Desert all the way to Anatolia. What makes them rootless? Are the modern Turks rootless? They have mostly Anatolian DNA with some Turkish admixture. The native Anatolians simply adopted the culture and identity of their Turkish conquerors and thereafter started calling themselves Turks. What does rootlessness really amount to?

 

[iajj]

Rootlessness does not have much meaning. All of human history is about migration and dispossession. Some groups were better at this than others. The Turkics stand out in history for being able to dispossess a huge portion of humanity while migrating from the Gobi Desert all the way to Anatolia. What makes them rootless? Are the modern Turks rootless? They have mostly Anatolian DNA with some Turkish admixture. The native Anatolians simply adopted the culture and identity of their Turkish conquerors and thereafter started calling themselves Turks. What does rootlessness really amount to?

this rootlessness translates into, first, a globalist ideology (the pan movements, all of which were extinguished in the century last except for panturkicism, which is alive and well in all the turk members on this forum and in the turks section; zionism, with its inevitably historical baggage about jew race as an exiled group, its inability to find home anywhere, its resentment against the very concept of home later on; and angloamerican liberal-conservative cosmopolitanism). this ideology respects no state borders and respect no established eurasian identities, cultures, and manners. and i am not talking about human migration and wars and conquests, which are an elementary fact of life and constitute human historicity. many conquering races assimulated and were assimilated in turn; many conquered peoples assimiliated and were assimilated, too, but these transformations soon gave these races a look that defined them in relation to the new homeland, new neighbors, new rulers, etc. turkics and jews are fundamentally different in this regard; they are permanently migratory, and this causes permanent friction with other continental races and peoples in a way that cannot be resolved except racial reprogramming, sterilization, or annihilation.

this rootlessness translates also into the specific military and economic tactics and technologies the rootless races embrace. turkics in the past and angloamericans in the present are particularly known not just for violence but for the mode of violence. it is not enough that they maim and kill and destroy; they must kill in a particular way that serves their racial rootlessness: they kill not to conquer - for conquerors always, always have to create a relationship with the conquered, however unequal that relationship is - but to destroy even relationships per se. the war machine that turkics built in the past, the war machine the angloamericans wield now, make war on the very way other races make war. jews, while militarily insignficant, are known to create wealth in ways that destroy the very way the economic exploiters and the economic exploited interact and bond, and their financial capitalism destroys normal capital operations and normal economic intercourse very much the way angloamericans and turkics historically remade and subverted war making.

everywhere we turn, we find friendship or we find war. rootless races challenge our very ability to do either, and that is why the war against these races goes deeper than just geopolitical enmity: it is by necessity and by definition racial and racist.

 

[Desert Fox]

Technically, it's possible for a smaller group of soldiers to defeat a larger group provided the circumstances are right, but I can't determine the validity of this incident. If true, then it's obvious that the Italian officers in charge of the garrisons made a foolish mistake, & failed to analyse the strength & tactics of their enemy or even adequately react & launch an offensive to the threat of the captured blockhouse. As far as the abilities of the Italian people are concerned, then the Roman Empire is evidence of their capabilities in warfare & governing. In the days of the ancient Roman Republic, foreigners were not involved in warfare & it was primarily Roman citizens that did most of the fighting, earning a great reputation for themselves. However, it's true that the Romans learnt from foreign people near them, both in terms of technology & warfare. Their approach to warfare was quite holistic in the sense that they didn't look for one killing tactic. Instead, the Romans used various tactics in coordination resulting in a well organised & disciplined fighting force. The truth is that any nation can excel at warfare provided their training, discipline, technology, strategy, tactics, & morale is up to the mark.

It is true that the Italians during the Era of the Roman Empire were formidable warriors and excellent tacticians. But what differentiates them from their WW2 successors was that they had ambition, and that ambitious spirit combined with their training, discipline, technology, strategy, and tactics (as you mentioned) helped them to achieve countless victories over powerful regional rivals like Greece, Carthage, Egypt, etc.

The average Italian during WW2 was not interested in war or ambitious overseas expeditions. They lacked the will to fight, whether it was in North Africa, Sicily, against the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, or on the Italian mainland when the allies made a successful landing (they were welcomed by Italian troops and civilians). It was only Mussolini and a handful of other Fascists who had grand ambitions of reestablishing the Roman Empire. Once the war turned against Italy, the Italians overthrew Mussolini's gov.t.

In North Africa the Germans had to bail the Italian army from utter destruction at the hands of the British. On the Eastern Front, in particular, the Germans paid a very heavy price. During the Battle of Stalingrad the entire Axis flank guarding the German 6th army's struggle for Stalingrad collapsed under the weight of the Soviet offensive Operation Saturn. The Red Army targeted the Italian held sectors. There were many reports that some Italian divisions panicked at the sight of Soviet Tanks rushing towards them and fled in an instance, leaving behind most of their heavy weapons/equipment rather than trying to hold back the Soviets from breaching their lines and encircling nearby Romanian, Hungarian, and German divisions. As a result of which, the Romanian, Hungarian, German, and a few other Italian divisions too were surrounded and then destroyed by the Soviets, along with the entire German 6th Army trapped in Stalingrad. The Soviets particularly targeted Italian held sectors of the Axis front during the early phases of the war because they were well aware of the lack of spirit of fighting a long and drawn out war amongst the Italian troops.

Here is a first hand experience of a famous Belgian Waffen SS Soldier (later on General) Leon Degrelle on the Eastern Front, he explains in detail the nature of the Italian soldiers (read from the bottom of Page 29 to the top of Page 32): Campaign In Russia: The Waffen SS on the Eastern Front

Contrast this to how the Germans held of more than a million Soviet Troops in front of Moscow during the winter of 1941-1942 (the coldest Russian winter of the 20th century), and although they suffered immense casualties, they were able to inflict tremendous losses on the Red Army. During the battle, the Waffen SS lost more than 45,000 of its finest men right in front of Moscow in an attempt to hold of the Soviet hordes of tanks and infantry. Despite the military reverses during the final phases of the war the Germans continued to put up fierce resistance, even till the bitter end.

As for genetics, I am more interested in population origins than racial differences themselves, but yeah, I do agree that racial differences exist, the most obvious one being the phenotype of the primary races. All of those differences are determined by genes, in fact anger as an emotion too relates to an individual's genes. Human social behaviour itself tends to somewhat relate to genes & is quite likely to have evolved differently in various races. In other words, there was significant evolution among humans after leaving Africa, & evolution among all organisms is going on as we speak. This article, which is essentially a review of a new book is very interesting, & let's not forget that political correctness causes trouble when discussing this sensitive topic. I haven't read the book "A Troublesome Inheritance" yet, but it's bound to be interesting especially as research in the subject continues to take place.

Indeed, that is very interesting. Thanks for the article and i will certainly give the book "A Troublesome Inheritance" a read when i have the time, it seems well worth the read. Many of these so called "genetic researchers" who try to disprove racial differences have a certain political agenda or just try to profit from the prevalent popular belief that racial theories are all outdated and thus incorrect yet these same people do everything to push the theory of evolution over the creationist theory. Just goes to show they are tools of politics.

I do appreciate your input and im glad that PDF has a member like yourself who is knowledgeable in this subject and who i can tag in my post in case i need your support, because like i said genetics (and related topics) is not my strongest subject although i do believe racial differences are significant.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

It is true that the Italians during the Era of the Roman Empire were formidable warriors and excellent tacticians. But what differentiates them from their WW2 successors was that they had ambition, and that ambitious spirit combined with their training, discipline, technology, strategy, and tactics (as you mentioned) helped them to achieve countless victories over powerful regional rivals like Greece, Carthage, Egypt, etc.

The average Italian during WW2 was not interested in war or ambitious overseas expeditions. They lacked the will to fight, whether it was in North Africa, Sicily, against the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, or on the Italian mainland when the allies made a successful landing (they were welcomed by Italian troops and civilians). It was only Mussolini and a handful of other Fascists who had grand ambitions of reestablishing the Roman Empire. Once the war turned against Italy, the Italians overthrew Mussolini's gov.t.

In North Africa the Germans had to bail the Italian army from utter destruction at the hands of the British. On the Eastern Front, in particular, the Germans paid a very heavy price. During the Battle of Stalingrad the entire Axis flank guarding the German 6th army's struggle for Stalingrad collapsed under the weight of the Soviet offensive Operation Saturn. The Red Army targeted the Italian held sectors. There were many reports that some Italian divisions panicked at the sight of Soviet Tanks rushing towards them and fled in an instance, leaving behind most of their heavy weapons/equipment rather than trying to hold back the Soviets from breaching their lines and encircling nearby Romanian, Hungarian, and German divisions. As a result of which, the Romanian, Hungarian, German, and a few other Italian divisions too were surrounded and then destroyed by the Soviets, along with the entire German 6th Army trapped in Stalingrad. The Soviets particularly targeted Italian held sectors of the Axis front during the early phases of the war because they were well aware of the lack of spirit of fighting a long and drawn out war amongst the Italian troops.

Here is a first hand experience of a famous Belgian Waffen SS Soldier (later on General) Leon Degrelle on the Eastern Front, he explains in detail the nature of the Italian soldiers (read from the bottom of Page 29 to the top of Page 32): Campaign In Russia: The Waffen SS on the Eastern Front

Contrast this to how the Germans held of more than a million Soviet Troops in front of Moscow during the winter of 1941-1942 (the coldest Russian winter of the 20th century), and although they suffered immense casualties, they were able to inflict tremendous losses on the Red Army. During the battle, the Waffen SS lost more than 45,000 of its finest men right in front of Moscow in an attempt to hold of the Soviet hordes of tanks and infantry. Despite the military reverses during the final phases of the war the Germans continued to put up fierce resistance, even till the bitter end.

That’s true, & of course I did not mean to imply that people would be good at warfare simply because their ancestors were. It all comes down to the points mentioned earlier regarding the need for training, discipline, strategy, tactics, technology, & morale. Any nation & army regardless of race or ethnicity can be beaten if they were to lack in those areas. Furthermore, the will to fight on plays an important role in victory & defeat. Once a country loses the will to fight, it’s doomed. My knowledge of the battles in World War II aside from the main details isn’t as extensive in comparison to my knowledge of the battles fought in the ancient & medieval world, which I have a significant interest in. I agree that Mussolini had no chance of truly recreating a new Roman Empire simply because at the time, the age of empires was coming to an end with the rise of nationalism & an increasing desire to self-govern. Besides, the modern day globalized world that emerged after World War II simply does not accept conquests or occupations in most cases. Add to that the fact that the Italian army & public had no desire to fight, so the dream of an empire falls apart instantly.

That was an excellent link regarding the eastern campaign, & while I didn’t read the whole book, it still proved to be quite interesting. I have also heard that not only did Italy lack good military equipment back then but their production capabilities in comparison to other powers including the United States were extremely poor. The country was not ready for the war it had entered, & they seriously lacked innovation & quality in terms of ship building, the manufacture of planes, et cetera even after they began to upgrade their military industrial complex during WWII. By the way, check out this excellent documentary regarding the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest between the Roman Empire & the Germanic tribes. It resulted in Rome’s withdrawal from Germanic territories east of the river Rhine.

Indeed, that is very interesting. Thanks for the article and i will certainly give the book "A Troublesome Inheritance" a read when i have the time, it seems well worth the read. Many of these so called "genetic researchers" who try to disprove racial differences have a certain political agenda or just try to profit from the prevalent popular belief that racial theories are all outdated and thus incorrect yet these same people do everything to push the theory of evolution over the creationist theory. Just goes to show they are tools of politics.

The book reviews I have come across so far seem to be a mixed bag. What this book has managed to do though is rejuvenate the debate regarding race & bring up the ideological factors that make this a sensitive topic among the populace. The theory of evolution is quite interesting, & there have even been hoaxes when studying human evolution in the past. I think the most well known hoax is the "Piltdown Man". Personally, I do believe in animal evolution, & it is also true that all organisms including humans are evolving as we speak. However, I don't believe that humans evolved from a lower life form, & there isn't any truly conclusive evidence whatsoever of that happening either. It just so happens that that is the only point of contention between Abrahamic religions & the evolutionary theory. In any case, it will be interesting to see what scientists manage to uncover in the future because the field of human genetics is flourishing at a significant pace, & we have still got a lot to learn.

I do appreciate your input and im glad that PDF has a member like yourself who is knowledgeable in this subject and who i can tag in my post in case i need your support, because like i said genetics (and related topics) is not my strongest subject although i do believe racial differences are significant.

Thanks bro, I apologize for not being able to respond earlier.

 

[Desert Fox]

That’s true, & of course I did not mean to imply that people would be good at warfare simply because their ancestors were. It all comes down to the points mentioned earlier regarding the need for training, discipline, strategy, tactics, technology, & morale. Any nation & army regardless of race or ethnicity can be beaten if they were to lack in those areas. Furthermore, the will to fight on plays an important role in victory & defeat. Once a country loses the will to fight, it’s doomed. My knowledge of the battles in World War II aside from the main details isn’t as extensive in comparison to my knowledge of the battles fought in the ancient & medieval world, which I have a significant interest in. I agree that Mussolini had no chance of truly recreating a new Roman Empire simply because at the time, the age of empires was coming to an end with the rise of nationalism & an increasing desire to self-govern. Besides, the modern day globalized world that emerged after World War II simply does not accept conquests or occupations in most cases. Add to that the fact that the Italian army & public had no desire to fight, so the dream of an empire falls apart instantly.

Yes! You are spot on with your analysis. My knowledge of the ancient and medieval world is somewhere between weak and strong, I do know a good amount but not know, or rather don't remember details like exact names of important figures, the different dynasties, exact dates of significant events, etc when it comes to certain ancient empires and civilizations.

That was an excellent link regarding the eastern campaign, & while I didn’t read the whole book, it still proved to be quite interesting.

Yes, that Book is a really good read, especially for those who enjoy adventurous novels and are also into reading about the historical battles of WW2 and the personal experiences of those who fought in that war. However, what makes the author of this book, Leon Degrelle unique is that he was a well known Belgian Political figure of that time as well as a soldier who started off as a regular infantrymen and eventually fought his way up to the rank of General in the Waffen SS, participating on the Eastern Front, to this day the most bloodiest theater of conflict in human history, and that was no small achievement. He was one of the few surviving Axis leaders of WW2. He's also written a few other books and articles on WW2 and even on Hitler.

Here is a short English documentary on him, although it is polluted with bias and propaganda, nevertheless its the only English Documentary on him and it'll give you some basic background info on this man :

I have also heard that not only did Italy lack good military equipment back then but their production capabilities in comparison to other powers including the United States were extremely poor. The country was not ready for the war it had entered, & they seriously lacked innovation & quality in terms of ship building, the manufacture of planes, et cetera even after they began to upgrade their military industrial complex during WWII.

Yeah, pretty much. Their equipment wasn't on par with that of the Germans nor the Allies. And their overall strategy wasn't good either.

By the way, check out this excellent documentary regarding the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest between the Roman Empire & the Germanic tribes. It resulted in Rome’s withdrawal from Germanic territories east of the river Rhine.

​

This was a very interesting documentary. Arminius has been frequently mentioned in National Socialist (Nazi) literature along with other historical German leaders like Frederick II and Bismarck, all of whom played a significant role in protecting/defending Germany from foreign subjugation in their respective time periods, though the Germans refer to Arminius as "Hermann". The Nazis and Germans in general took great inspiration from the story of Arminius. However what bothered me about the documentary was the exaggerated description some of those experts gave of the Germanic tribes and even Arminius himself, accusing him of having a lust for power which partially motivated him to betray the Romans and attain leadership of the divided Germanic Tribes, for the most part. By betraying the Romans he had more to lose (a comfortable lifestyle, etc) than gain. He was genuinely compelled to bring an end to the brutal occupation and subjugation of his people, and that really is inspiring.

And i do believe that the Germanic Tribes weren't as savage like as the experts in the documentary described them to be. The Germans were perhaps the most civilized and disciplined of the Barbarians the Romans would encounter. The Roman Cornelius Tacitus described them as follows: "The peoples of Germania have never contaminated themselves by intermarriage with foreigners but remain of pure blood, distinct and unlike any other nation". He even praises them in another quote: "Good morality is more effective in Germania than good laws are elsewhere".

The book reviews I have come across so far seem to be a mixed bag. What this book has managed to do though is rejuvenate the debate regarding race & bring up the ideological factors that make this a sensitive topic among the populace. The theory of evolution is quite interesting, & there have even been hoaxes when studying human evolution in the past. I think the most well known hoax is the "Piltdown Man". Personally, I do believe in animal evolution, & it is also true that all organisms including humans are evolving as we speak. However, I don't believe that humans evolved from a lower life form, & there isn't any truly conclusive evidence whatsoever of that happening either. It just so happens that that is the only point of contention between Abrahamic religions & the evolutionary theory. In any case, it will be interesting to see what scientists manage to uncover in the future because the field of human genetics is flourishing at a significant pace, & we have still got a lot to learn.

Yes, race is too obvious a reality to be ignored by anyone, there's plenty of evidence to prove this. And i agree with the notion that although humans have evolved and continue to do so, we are by no means descendants of apes or any other lower life form.

Thanks bro, I apologize for not being able to respond earlier.

No problem bro! And its all good. Whenever you have the time you can respond, i don't mind really.