DogOnPorch Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Gandhi's opposition to violence of any kind was well known. He was naive in believeing that non-violence was the response to Hitler, but that's not the same as support for him.It is little known, but Gandhi wrote two letters to Hitler, one in August 1939 asking him to do everything possible to avoid the war, the other in December 1941 asking him to stop the war and embrance Gandhian non-violence. That he sent those letters proves how little Gnadhi understood of the real evil of Hitler and his plans. But both his appeals to Hitler and his refusal to condone the war against Germany were consistent with his total opposition to any violence. And in his second letter, he makes it very clear that he and his followers cannot wish Germany's victory. Bull...India had it's own fascists. Stop treating non-Western nations like they're children not responsible for their actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 right.now you're claiming that gandhi supported the nazis. you're fucked. well Ghandi was indeed a racist and national socialist... for indians... Read on what Ghandi thought of blacks and what he termed "Kaffar" races... most of it would scare the pants off of flower-souled liberals (who foolishly admire him for the wrongest reasons) ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted August 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Get back to me when you find out what his posituon was on the second world war. You're reasons for admiring him are ever so clear.Wanted the jews to kill themsleves didn't want hitler stopped.... he did not support the nazis. why must you lie so much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted August 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 well Ghandi was indeed a racist and national socialist... for indians... Read on what Ghandi thought of blacks and what he termed "Kaffar" races... most of it would scare the pants off of flower-souled liberals (who foolishly admire him for the wrongest reasons) ... the word kaffar was used freely by everyone in the early 1900's. regardless, what does that have to do with dancer's claim that he supported the nazis? are you also being dishonest like dancer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malaclypse the Younger Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Gandhi's opposition to violence of any kind was well known. He was naive in believeing that non-violence was the response to Hitler, but that's not the same as support for him. He never said that non-violence was the answer to Hitler. In fact, he did say that non-violence was not the answer to a number of problems, and that if an invading force were to attack his country, he would certainly take up arms and fight back. Gandhi knew that non-violence was the answer to the British because he knew that they were not completely heartless, and that not all of the British authorities in India truly wished to continue to subjugate India. It is little known, but Gandhi wrote two letters to Hitler, one in August 1939 asking him to do everything possible to avoid the war, the other in December 1941 asking him to stop the war and embrance Gandhian non-violence. That he sent those letters proves how little Gnadhi understood of the real evil of Hitler and his plans. Quite the opposite, he knew exactly what Hitler was doing. Just because he made pleas to a violent person to not go to war and to stop the war that he started, does not mean that he did not know that Hitler was bent on continuing his war at any cost. If you beg and plea for a person who is about to kill you to not kill you, does that mean that you don't know they're about to kill you, or does that mean you want to live? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Gandhi's opposition to violence of any kind was well known. He was naive in believeing that non-violence was the response to Hitler, but that's not the same as support for him.It is little known, but Gandhi wrote two letters to Hitler, one in August 1939 asking him to do everything possible to avoid the war, the other in December 1941 asking him to stop the war and embrance Gandhian non-violence. That he sent those letters proves how little Gnadhi understood of the real evil of Hitler and his plans. But both his appeals to Hitler and his refusal to condone the war against Germany were consistent with his total opposition to any violence. And in his second letter, he makes it very clear that he and his followers cannot wish Germany's victory. And while he was calling Hitler his dear friend, he was urging Indians to thwart the British war effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malaclypse the Younger Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 And while he was calling Hitler his dear friend, he was urging Indians to thwart the British war effort. I don't think he called Hitler a "dear friend" because they actually knew each other or had ever even met each other. More likely, it was part of his plea to end the violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I don't think he called Hitler a "dear friend" because they actually knew each other or had ever even met each other. More likely, it was part of his plea to end the violence. The we both agree he was a dangerous idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cato Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Gandhi knew that non-violence was the answer to the British because he knew that they were not completely heartless, and that not all of the British authorities in India truly wished to continue to subjugate India He knew, that violence against the Brits was not viable, because those were better at that. Hitler was bent on continuing his war at any cost I do realize, that the brainwashed (i.e. the wast majority) has faith in such nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 He knew, that violence against the Brits was not viable, because those were better at that. Yet there was a great deal of violence incluidng wide spread rioting and massacres. The rising violence meant the costs for Britain of maintaining its colony were outweighing the shrinking benefits. Independence became inevitable. The only question was what form it would take http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_...&Itemid=106 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cato Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Yet there was a great deal of violence incluidng wide spread rioting and massacres. Yes, but the "Indians" never had a chance to win against the Brits by violence. Rioting etc. contributed to the outcome, but not by beating the Brits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Yes, but the "Indians" never had a chance to win against the Brits by violence. Rioting etc. contributed to the outcome, but not by beating the Brits. Then if violence contributed, as is plainly the fact, perhaps it was non violence that wasn't the answer. The idea that a nation of a half billion couldn't beat the British is simply ludicrous. The indians knew that and obviously so did the UK. Edited August 4, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted August 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Yet there was a great deal of violence incluidng wide spread rioting and massacres. all violence were against gandhi's wishes. http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_...&Itemid=106 Socialist Alternative? regular visitor to this site? so you finally were able to find an opinion piece where a sentence, sort of, supported your point? what about the rest of the points that were made in the article? are you still saying that gandhi supported the nazis? Then if violence contributed, as is plainly the fact, perhaps it was non violence that wasn't the answer.The idea that a nation of a half billion couldn't beat the British is simply ludicrous. The indians knew that and obviously so did the UK. it was different factors that contributed to the british leaving. one of the biggest contributors was gandhi's approach that included the general strikes or non-cooperation. other reasons were: - world war 1 and 2 which left britain weak - the mutinies by indian soldiers Edited August 4, 2009 by dub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 - the mutinies by indian soldiers Yeah the Sepoy rebellion was very top of mind.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted August 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 although a minor one, it's still a satisfaction when you don't reply to the other comments. every time, it shows how you're unwilling to deal with the truth. Yeah the Sepoy rebellion was very top of mind.... eh? The Royal Indian Navy mutiny (also called the Bombay Mutiny) encompasses a total strike and subsequent mutiny by Indian sailors of the Royal Indian Navy on board ship and shore establishments at Bombay (Mumbai) harbour on 18 February 1946. From the initial flashpoint in Bombay, the mutiny spread and found support throughout British India, from Karachi to Calcutta and ultimately came to involve 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors. and The Royal Air Force Mutiny of 1946 was a mutiny on approximately Royal Air Force stations in India and South Asia in January 1946 over conditions of slow demobilization and conditions of service following the end of World War II. The mutiny, in reality a strike action, began at Karachi and later spread to involve nearly 50,000 men over 60 RAF stations in India and Ceylon, including the then largest RAF base at Kanpur and RAF bases as far as Singapore. all were a non-factor. right. maybe the grand mufti had something to do with this? where is DoP to confirm this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 all were a non-factor. right. Pretty much. That and Gandhi condemned the mutinies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted August 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Pretty much. That and Gandhi condemned the mutinies. you're wrong way too often. according to you, the strike that involved: 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors. and 50,000 men over 60 RAF stations in India and Ceylon, including the then largest RAF base at Kanpur and RAF bases as far as Singapore. were a non-factor. right. must you make the truth and reality weep every the time you post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 oooo...the drama......lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malaclypse the Younger Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 The we both agree he was a dangerous idiot. Not at all. You're very sorely mistaken, and incredibly ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Not at all. You're very sorely mistaken, and incredibly ignorant. So ....a 1/2 million dead indians were what then? A little oopsie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted August 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 So ....a 1/2 million dead indians were what then? A little oopsie? the 1/2 million killed during those years were not a result of gandhi's non-violent approach. you'd have to be a simpleton or a dishonest person to try to sell something like that. there were many groups in india during that time and the struggle against the colonist was not the only event that was unfolding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 the 1/2 million killed during those years were not a result of gandhi's non-violent approach. you'd have to be a simpleton or a dishonest person to try to sell something like that. You would have to be a simpleton to think that was my point. I take it you think that was my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 there were many groups in india during that time and the struggle against the colonist was not the only event that was unfolding. You would have to be a simpleton to think the nationalists struggle were against colonists.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted August 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) You would have to be a simpleton to think the nationalists struggle were against colonists.... you can't even follow a point. actually, i don't think you're that simple. i think you're barely an average intellect who lies and says whatever it takes to push his nationalist agenda. who else would equate gandhi sending a letter to hitler to stop the violence to gandhi supporting the nazis. Edited August 5, 2009 by dub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 (edited) who else would equate gandhi sending a letter to hitler to stop the violence to gandhi supporting the nazis. He actively worked to hinder the British war effort. See Sherlock and ask if he has an extra clue to lend you. Lets refresh 1) Gandhi Pacifism was instrumental in the process towards Indian and Pakistani independance. 3) Wide spread Rioting and violence left India ungovernable despite Gandhi pacifism. 4) Gandhi was just one of the factors. 5) Armed forces mutinies were a leading factor (overlooking that they weren't on strike for independence). 6) Gandhi opposed the mutinies. 7) Over 1/2 million killed during partition. 8) Gandhi influence over the bloodshed was pathetic. 9) Gandhi was a dangerous niave idiot. Edited August 5, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.