7 ms·

Gandhi's Letter to Hitler (1940)

116 points by wslh 2y ago

nhod 2y ago
This made me tear up a bit. May we all be able to approach those with whom we disagree with such clear eyes and full hearts.
_kava 2y ago
I recently learned of the three poisons in Buddhism: ignorance, greed, and hatred. Buddhists consider these as the roots of all evils and something that plague all minds, from the lowliest animals to the noblest sages and even gods. It is easy to see these poisons in the events leading to the rise of Hitler. The ignorance of racial characteristics, the greed of land and power, the hatred of foreigners, they are all so obvious now. What is more disturbing is how the same poisons seem to be widely popular nowadays and many, including some of the most powerful people in the world, appear to actively embrace them. Edit: This seems a more controversial opinion than I expected...
- nikolay 2y ago
  [flagged]
- ilvez 2y ago
  > What is more disturbing is how the same poisons seem to be widely popular nowadays You are correct. Yet it has always been so.. Starting point at least to me seems is the culture and its values.
  - saulpw 2y ago
    There have been times in history, even in modern history, that the popular view of these poisons was negative, as sins not to be indulged.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    no culture starts out with ignorance, greed or hatred as its values. it's a degradation that evolves because it appears to make some people succeed.
- euroderf 2y ago
  > ignorance, greed, and hatred In Buddhism aren't these all aspects of (or knock-on effects of) attachment ?
leosanchez 2y ago
> You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud. Profound.
amatecha 2y ago
The degree of wisdom and truly "evolved" thinking demonstrated in this letter is deeply inspiring. Simultaneously, it conversely seems to support the idea that you can't really reason with fascists because their hunger for power (and destruction) is essentially insatiable and they won't stop because someone spoke some convincing words.
- throwaway10oct 2y ago
  I respectfully disagree because Gandhi's approach may seem idealistic, but in reality, nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest. Nonviolent methods often require the possibility of violence as a backdrop to be effective. Otherwise, they might not yield the desired results. While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios.
  - tomohelix 2y ago
    Indeed, if you are pragmatic and want actual, certain results, violence and force are the surefire methods. That is why the GP put the "evolved" in quotes. It takes something more than the basest human instincts and the animal sides of us to take this approach. Some may consider it naive. I personally think Gandhi was smart enough to deduce this on his own yet still chose the nonviolent approach regardless. That alone shows he was a greater "man" than most, in my opinion.
    - Bancakes 2y ago
      Kudos for putting man in double quotes, following the theme.
    - throw0101b 2y ago
      > Indeed, if you are pragmatic and want actual, certain results, violence and force are the surefire methods. The historical record says otherwise: * https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLKfPdP0E4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLKfPdP0E4 * https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/3/21048121/ezra-klein-erica-chenoweth-nonviolence-topple-dictators https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/3/21048121/ezra-klein-er...
gandinator 2y ago
> My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity A friend of everyone is a friend of no one. Same goes for "love of everyone". The terms are effectively rendered useless.
- callmeal 2y ago
  >Same goes for "love of everyone". The core teachings of the purported "unofficially official religion" of the US would beg to differ.
tempodox 2y ago
The most astonishing thing about the worst Nazis is that they were incapable of perceiving their actions as monstrous atrocities and crimes. Given that context, this letter was hopeless from the start.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Most people deny, to some degree, that their own behavior as wrong. They deny it to themselves and to others. People can deny incredible things if those things are against their interests. People who don't deny such things would not be Nazis for long.
  - ImHereToVote 2y ago
    Makes me wonder what most people would do if a genocide was perpetrated right now. I have a feeling they would call the protestors of that genocide woke.
    - worthless-trash 2y ago
      The term woke has now become a pointless descriptor bearing little resemblement to the self prescribed enlightenment or the derogatory ignorance that is used as for and against. So with this mindset, yes.. they absolutely will be called woke.
      - ImHereToVote 2y ago
        The term was coined as being aware of your surroundings when traversing the southern states. As in; be woke as a black man when travelling in the south. It then morphed to be a virtue signal of high status by the neo-liberal bourgeoisie.
        mmooss 2y ago
        > It then morphed to be a virtue signal of high status by the neo-liberal bourgeoisie. That's a group of inflammatory, partisan claims; what evidence is there?
diwank 2y ago
Unbelievably profound. Gandhi had this rare combination of moral clarity and practical wisdom. The sheer audacity to write to Hitler—not with rage or condemnation, but with an appeal to his humanity—shows the depth of his conviction. He didn’t just preach non-violence; he lived it, even in the face of the ultimate test: reaching out to someone synonymous with destruction and hatred. What’s amazing is that he didn’t waver in his principles, even when addressing one of history’s most brutal figures. It’s like he saw through the monster to the lost human underneath and tried to remind him of his better self. That level of courage and empathy is just… next-level.
- karmakurtisaani 2y ago
  It's noble and admirable, but also hopelessly naive. Imagine thinking you could convince Putin of anything with just a letter. These dictators are so corrupted by greed and wealth that they have nothing else left.
medo-bear 2y ago
It is interesting to read about him comparing Nazis to Brits. The Brits enslaved 1/5 of the world and paid so little for it.
tap-snap-or-nap 2y ago
> For, if a fair number of men and women be found in India who would be prepared without any ill will against the spoliators to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them, they would have shown the way to freedom from the tyranny of violence. I find this statement quite unsettling and devalues the lives of a 'a fair number of men and women be found in India'. It is practically a green signal to mow down the population without any aversive consequences for violent acts and dubiously hoping to evoke some humanity and kindness out of the British Military and State machinery.
praptak 2y ago
"They can have the former only by complete destruction of every Indian-man, woman and child" Unfortunately this is not a rhetoricallly exaggerated and obviously impossible choice. Settler colonialism exists and relies exactly on this approach. I wonder how certain could Gandhi be that the British wouldn't choose this approach.
- zerr 2y ago
  Because British already knew the taste of cheap (free) human labour?
- blackoil 2y ago
  Yes. Gandhi's methods work as a call to the morality of the oppressing force. He studied in Britain, and I believe his method of non-violet resistance is forged by his principles and understanding of British people. These methods won't work in Ukraine and Gaza.
Simon_ORourke 2y ago
Not putting too fine a point on it, but Gandhi's non-violent resistance worked in the India of his time, because the British wanted both the labor and the natural resources, and killing all the former would simply have cost them. In Gaza and Ukraine right now, the colonial powers simply want the territory, and are largely indifferent or are openly hostile to the continued physical existence of the people who live there.
- wslh 2y ago
  Please develop your idea about Israel being a colonial power.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    In rough chronological arrangement: - The Balfour declaration, announced by a colonial power without permission or proofreading from the natives or landowners - The consequential Arab-Israeli war - Operation Cast Thy Bread and the introduction of ethnically targeted chemical warfare funded by the government - The 70 collective civilian casualties from Qibya being raided by IDF - The 400 collective civilian casualties from Rafah and Khan Yunis being raided by IDF - Israel's routine violations of the 1949 Armistice Agreements throughout the 1950s - The Six Day War's extended annexations and territorial reparations - The passing of the Golan Heights law and the consequential defense of it despite international outcry - The decades-long occupation of Lebanon and (entirely accidental) formation of Hezbollah - The Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque bombing and other effects of "Dahieh Doctrine" as applied to civilian populations - The "Blue Line" and subsequent disagreements concerning it crossing territory Israel does not possess - The continued government support of the illegal and internationally disavowed settlement of northern Israel Unfortunately, my family has lived too close to this conflict for a comfortable accounting. Israel' history is colonial, from the moment they were issued land by Britain (anyone remember the Raj?), to the modern day where they deploy the IDF to defend illegal settlements. Except for the US and Israel's own objections, those settled areas are unanimously not acknowledged as Israeli territory by the UN and EU. Therefore, Israel is a colonial power. You can argue that they're one of the good colonizers if you want, but you'll need some pretty convincing evidence to justify 70 years of nationalism-fueled bloodshed concerning territories that were never part of their nation in the first place. Most Americans with internet access have started to realize that they can only support this occupation because it inherently necessitates Israel relying on American imported weapons. It's becoming a second "Pakistan situation" very quickly, and politicians are starting to realize it.
idoubtit 2y ago
I've tried to find more context about the two letters (1939 and 1940) that Gandhi sent to Hitler, but I still don't understand their purpose. Gandhi had been facing the British Empire for years, he knew that sweet admonishing letters would have no effect. Were they just for Public Relations? Absurd hope for a miracle? Or as a personal satisfaction? And after reading a few comments: be cautious before idolizing Gandhi. Of course, he did great things, but he was not a saint. His stature in South Africa (where he worked as a British solicitor) is contested because of his racist opinions at the time. When I read Gandhi's memoirs, I was also shocked by his low consideration for women: he claimed he would kill his daughters rather than they were dishonoured ; he didn't care for what his daughters thought. He didn't care either for the women's feelings (and his wife) when he used to sleep with young girls, to test his repression of his sexual desires.
- karmakurtisaani 2y ago
  Not to defend ant of his strange opinions, but they were probably somewhat normal in his time. Just the fact that he could step out of some of the norms is admirable. I could imagine future generations warning us of today's "good" people because they ate meat etc.
intended 2y ago
Gandhi is interesting. Today he gets more attention, but many of his tactics and strategies are already absorbed into our day to day life. Negotiation, non violent communication, many modern techniques link back up to what he invented. Its also quite close to engineering and analysis in some ways, there were very custom solutions to a problem he faced. TLDR - Gandhi found a way to neutralize massive weaknesses which would stop typical revolutionary movements by flipping them on their head. 1) India was incredibly divided, and the divisions were a core pillar of how India was run. This was a major challenge that had multiple attempts to deal with the Brits futile. 2) Indians were impoverished, not something you would consider dry tinder ready to throw their lives down in battle. The techniques used are very interesting because they either negated these challenges, or converted them into strengths. Gandhi outright challenged untouchability, whether people approved of his choice or didn’t. Given his upper class roots and the way he chose to live his life, it meant that many accusations to discredit him simply didn’t hold. That credibility was one section of the foundation. The other foundations were the effectiveness of non violence. You have a massive divided population, which had lost its dignity and self determination, and would require massive resources to arm and coordinate them. Non cooperation and non violence flipped those constraints and broke many assumptions of how power operated. Non cooperation meant that choice was immediately returned to everyone in India. You regained agency to choose. Non violence returned agency and dignity to people. It meant that you didn’t need a weapon to stand up for yourself. It means that you recognized the weakness of your position, and you still could choose to stand for yourself without having to become what the attacker wanted you to become. Getting beaten and not retaliating is hard, it means not responding to many base instincts carved into our biology. Standing there and taking it removed the accusation of cowardice and weakness. It’s the difficult choice that makes you human. But on their own these are moral stands, not effective politics. Gandhi’s tactics targeted the economic machine which is what mattered to the British empire. He was also very active with the press, during the salt march there were talks with Press every night when they rested. Non violent communication was born from these techniques. Mandela and MLK both found him inspiring - and both said that there was a limit to the efficacy of Gandhian techniques in their respective scenarios. In the end it’s the pragmatism and the uplifting nature of these techniques and ideas that I find fascinating.
dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
> You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud. That is one of the problems that is often omitted but matters a lot. After Putin dies, what kind of legacy will he leave for Russians? They already struggle with the attitude to adapt. Many choose to ignore it totally, which seems logical because as ordinary citizens they have zero influence on the war. What about their children, though? You learn that your country attacked another one, your compatriots were torturing, mutilating, raping and murdering innocent civilians. You can no longer pretend, as all countries do, that they are the righteous one. Just like Germany after WW2, you need to live with this stain.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  You missed the 'l' in [S]tain'
metalmangler 2y ago
My father was born in Patiyalla, Punjab and at a time just before WW2, Gandi ji would make it his habbit to stay and rest in a small leanto, attached to the back of a local mosque in Patiyala, and while there, he forbade contact with adults. So familys would send.there children to sit at the great mans feet. My father was the child of land owners and went to be there with Ghandi ji, but things did not go well for him, he sat with the children of the other worthies in this hut, very likely feeling out out, when another small child ducked in, upon which my father told this child "get out bunghi" ,bunghi bieng a slur against the class and caste of thus child, and dismissing such was(and is) something that my father is accustomed to. Ghandu ji, spoke up and said ,"NO!, you are a bhungi, we are all bhungi!" and brought this child to sit beside him facing the rest. And in the ensuing years, with the war and partition, and my family going through horror and 17 or our close and extended family dieing, has left me with some different views. Ghandi did try, but it is his signature beside that of mountbattens, that precipitated a war of ethnic clensing in the break up of india.Hitler and stallin would be envious of the body count that came after that signature. And the best I can say for Ghandi is that at the crucial moment, he blinked.
samdung 2y ago
The British committed more atrocities (going by body count) in the 20 odd years of India's "peaceful freedom movement" headed by MKG. 1919 - Jallianwala Bagh massacre (over 1500 shot dead in a few minutes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre 1943 - Bengal famine of 1943 (over 3 million dead). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 1947 - Partition of India (2 million deaths) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India Indian school text books just gloss over British brutality in India.
- ConfiYeti 2y ago
  I've read about all three in Indian school textbooks. (Local state board, c. late 2000s)
- intended 2y ago
  My suspicion is that many people who didn’t read their subjects, or just memorized the answers, have no recollection of what they studied. As a result they bring up these accusations. All of this was covered in our text books. From Jallianwala to the partition.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  So all the death and carnage that happened during the Partition was simply "committed" by the British - with no agency at all within the local populace? Seems to be a rather dehumanizing and belittling view of the latter.
  - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
    This is called concern trolling.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      You're reading too much into it. I just found it to be a strange choice of wording.
kokofoo 2y ago
Hitler had to learn the true nature and the power of nonviolent resistance the hard way. These were Hitler's words in 1943, admitting privately to his lieutenants the difficulties of ruling the conquered regions such as Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, etc., where people were using nonviolent non-cooperation means to resist the Nazi occupation. "One cannot rule by force alone... For, in the long run, government systems are not held together by the pressure of force, but rather by the belief in the quality and the truthfulness with which they represent and promote the interests of the people."
redmajor12 2y ago
The irony here is that Hitler did want peace (if only to clear the way for an invasion of the Soviet Union), but was continuously rebuffed by the British. This book is a good record of the various peace attempts and the British misuse of them to ensnare Hess: https://archive.org/details/hitlerhessdecept0000alle https://archive.org/details/hitlerhessdecept0000alle
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  For some reason, Britain keeps getting a free pass for their atrocities against their own subjects (in any country) and against other Europeans (yet again with Brexit).
kazinator 2y ago
> I, therefore, appeal to you in the name of humanity to stop the war. You will lose nothing by referring all the matters of dispute between you and Great Britain to an international tribunal of your joint choice. On the contrary he had everything to lose. Backpedaling on his entire agenda, performing an about face would have been political suicide. Hitler stopping the war by himself in response to Gandhi could never have happened. Gandhi would have to have convinced not only Hitler but all of Hitler's henchmen. If they stopped the war, they would have all been finished politically. Their only rational end game was to keep marching forward. If Hitler had approached his men saying you received an awakening letter from Gandhi which changed his outlook, he would have been regarded as crazy, probably stripped of his power. > For, if a fair number of men and women be found in India who would be prepared without any ill will against the spoliators to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them ... The Nazis were fanatics who were also willing to lay down their lives and did, including Hitler.
kemmishtree 2y ago
Never heard of this letter before, but it immediately made me think of Kenneth Patchen's The Journal of Albion Moonlight. To me it's a beautiful surrealistic masterpiece, written in the early 1940s, while Hitler was still alive. Hitler is a minor character, who memorably appears in a passage where he meets Jesus. I won't spoil it for you, but it still gives me goosebumps 25 years later thinking back on it. It's not a very long passage, but I think by itself it justifies reading the whole book, and I think it's more profound than Chaplin's The Great Dictator.

116 points by wslh 2y ago

nhod 2y ago

This made me tear up a bit. May we all be able to approach those with whom we disagree with such clear eyes and full hearts.

_kava 2y ago

I recently learned of the three poisons in Buddhism: ignorance, greed, and hatred. Buddhists consider these as the roots of all evils and something that plague all minds, from the lowliest animals to the noblest sages and even gods. It is easy to see these poisons in the events leading to the rise of Hitler. The ignorance of racial characteristics, the greed of land and power, the hatred of foreigners, they are all so obvious now. What is more disturbing is how the same poisons seem to be widely popular nowadays and many, including some of the most powerful people in the world, appear to actively embrace them. Edit: This seems a more controversial opinion than I expected...

nikolay 2y ago
[flagged]
ilvez 2y ago
> What is more disturbing is how the same poisons seem to be widely popular nowadays You are correct. Yet it has always been so.. Starting point at least to me seems is the culture and its values.
- saulpw 2y ago
  There have been times in history, even in modern history, that the popular view of these poisons was negative, as sins not to be indulged.
- em-bee 2y ago
  no culture starts out with ignorance, greed or hatred as its values. it's a degradation that evolves because it appears to make some people succeed.
euroderf 2y ago
> ignorance, greed, and hatred In Buddhism aren't these all aspects of (or knock-on effects of) attachment ?

leosanchez 2y ago

> You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud. Profound.

amatecha 2y ago

The degree of wisdom and truly "evolved" thinking demonstrated in this letter is deeply inspiring. Simultaneously, it conversely seems to support the idea that you can't really reason with fascists because their hunger for power (and destruction) is essentially insatiable and they won't stop because someone spoke some convincing words.

throwaway10oct 2y ago
I respectfully disagree because Gandhi's approach may seem idealistic, but in reality, nature functions on the basis of survival of the fittest. Nonviolent methods often require the possibility of violence as a backdrop to be effective. Otherwise, they might not yield the desired results. While Gandhi's philosophy sounds nice in theory, it may not always be the most practical in real-world scenarios.
- tomohelix 2y ago
  Indeed, if you are pragmatic and want actual, certain results, violence and force are the surefire methods. That is why the GP put the "evolved" in quotes. It takes something more than the basest human instincts and the animal sides of us to take this approach. Some may consider it naive. I personally think Gandhi was smart enough to deduce this on his own yet still chose the nonviolent approach regardless. That alone shows he was a greater "man" than most, in my opinion.
  - Bancakes 2y ago
    Kudos for putting man in double quotes, following the theme.
  - throw0101b 2y ago
    > Indeed, if you are pragmatic and want actual, certain results, violence and force are the surefire methods. The historical record says otherwise: * https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLKfPdP0E4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeLKfPdP0E4 * https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/3/21048121/ezra-klein-erica-chenoweth-nonviolence-topple-dictators https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/3/21048121/ezra-klein-er...

gandinator 2y ago

> My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity A friend of everyone is a friend of no one. Same goes for "love of everyone". The terms are effectively rendered useless.

callmeal 2y ago
>Same goes for "love of everyone". The core teachings of the purported "unofficially official religion" of the US would beg to differ.

tempodox 2y ago

The most astonishing thing about the worst Nazis is that they were incapable of perceiving their actions as monstrous atrocities and crimes. Given that context, this letter was hopeless from the start.

mmooss 2y ago
Most people deny, to some degree, that their own behavior as wrong. They deny it to themselves and to others. People can deny incredible things if those things are against their interests. People who don't deny such things would not be Nazis for long.
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  Makes me wonder what most people would do if a genocide was perpetrated right now. I have a feeling they would call the protestors of that genocide woke.
  - worthless-trash 2y ago
    The term woke has now become a pointless descriptor bearing little resemblement to the self prescribed enlightenment or the derogatory ignorance that is used as for and against. So with this mindset, yes.. they absolutely will be called woke.
    - ImHereToVote 2y ago
      The term was coined as being aware of your surroundings when traversing the southern states. As in; be woke as a black man when travelling in the south. It then morphed to be a virtue signal of high status by the neo-liberal bourgeoisie.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > It then morphed to be a virtue signal of high status by the neo-liberal bourgeoisie. That's a group of inflammatory, partisan claims; what evidence is there?

diwank 2y ago

Unbelievably profound. Gandhi had this rare combination of moral clarity and practical wisdom. The sheer audacity to write to Hitler—not with rage or condemnation, but with an appeal to his humanity—shows the depth of his conviction. He didn’t just preach non-violence; he lived it, even in the face of the ultimate test: reaching out to someone synonymous with destruction and hatred. What’s amazing is that he didn’t waver in his principles, even when addressing one of history’s most brutal figures. It’s like he saw through the monster to the lost human underneath and tried to remind him of his better self. That level of courage and empathy is just… next-level.

karmakurtisaani 2y ago
It's noble and admirable, but also hopelessly naive. Imagine thinking you could convince Putin of anything with just a letter. These dictators are so corrupted by greed and wealth that they have nothing else left.

medo-bear 2y ago

It is interesting to read about him comparing Nazis to Brits. The Brits enslaved 1/5 of the world and paid so little for it.

tap-snap-or-nap 2y ago

> For, if a fair number of men and women be found in India who would be prepared without any ill will against the spoliators to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them, they would have shown the way to freedom from the tyranny of violence. I find this statement quite unsettling and devalues the lives of a 'a fair number of men and women be found in India'. It is practically a green signal to mow down the population without any aversive consequences for violent acts and dubiously hoping to evoke some humanity and kindness out of the British Military and State machinery.

praptak 2y ago

"They can have the former only by complete destruction of every Indian-man, woman and child" Unfortunately this is not a rhetoricallly exaggerated and obviously impossible choice. Settler colonialism exists and relies exactly on this approach. I wonder how certain could Gandhi be that the British wouldn't choose this approach.

zerr 2y ago
Because British already knew the taste of cheap (free) human labour?
blackoil 2y ago
Yes. Gandhi's methods work as a call to the morality of the oppressing force. He studied in Britain, and I believe his method of non-violet resistance is forged by his principles and understanding of British people. These methods won't work in Ukraine and Gaza.

Simon_ORourke 2y ago

Not putting too fine a point on it, but Gandhi's non-violent resistance worked in the India of his time, because the British wanted both the labor and the natural resources, and killing all the former would simply have cost them. In Gaza and Ukraine right now, the colonial powers simply want the territory, and are largely indifferent or are openly hostile to the continued physical existence of the people who live there.

wslh 2y ago
Please develop your idea about Israel being a colonial power.
- talldayo 2y ago
  In rough chronological arrangement: - The Balfour declaration, announced by a colonial power without permission or proofreading from the natives or landowners - The consequential Arab-Israeli war - Operation Cast Thy Bread and the introduction of ethnically targeted chemical warfare funded by the government - The 70 collective civilian casualties from Qibya being raided by IDF - The 400 collective civilian casualties from Rafah and Khan Yunis being raided by IDF - Israel's routine violations of the 1949 Armistice Agreements throughout the 1950s - The Six Day War's extended annexations and territorial reparations - The passing of the Golan Heights law and the consequential defense of it despite international outcry - The decades-long occupation of Lebanon and (entirely accidental) formation of Hezbollah - The Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque bombing and other effects of "Dahieh Doctrine" as applied to civilian populations - The "Blue Line" and subsequent disagreements concerning it crossing territory Israel does not possess - The continued government support of the illegal and internationally disavowed settlement of northern Israel Unfortunately, my family has lived too close to this conflict for a comfortable accounting. Israel' history is colonial, from the moment they were issued land by Britain (anyone remember the Raj?), to the modern day where they deploy the IDF to defend illegal settlements. Except for the US and Israel's own objections, those settled areas are unanimously not acknowledged as Israeli territory by the UN and EU. Therefore, Israel is a colonial power. You can argue that they're one of the good colonizers if you want, but you'll need some pretty convincing evidence to justify 70 years of nationalism-fueled bloodshed concerning territories that were never part of their nation in the first place. Most Americans with internet access have started to realize that they can only support this occupation because it inherently necessitates Israel relying on American imported weapons. It's becoming a second "Pakistan situation" very quickly, and politicians are starting to realize it.

idoubtit 2y ago

I've tried to find more context about the two letters (1939 and 1940) that Gandhi sent to Hitler, but I still don't understand their purpose. Gandhi had been facing the British Empire for years, he knew that sweet admonishing letters would have no effect. Were they just for Public Relations? Absurd hope for a miracle? Or as a personal satisfaction? And after reading a few comments: be cautious before idolizing Gandhi. Of course, he did great things, but he was not a saint. His stature in South Africa (where he worked as a British solicitor) is contested because of his racist opinions at the time. When I read Gandhi's memoirs, I was also shocked by his low consideration for women: he claimed he would kill his daughters rather than they were dishonoured ; he didn't care for what his daughters thought. He didn't care either for the women's feelings (and his wife) when he used to sleep with young girls, to test his repression of his sexual desires.

karmakurtisaani 2y ago
Not to defend ant of his strange opinions, but they were probably somewhat normal in his time. Just the fact that he could step out of some of the norms is admirable. I could imagine future generations warning us of today's "good" people because they ate meat etc.

intended 2y ago

Gandhi is interesting. Today he gets more attention, but many of his tactics and strategies are already absorbed into our day to day life. Negotiation, non violent communication, many modern techniques link back up to what he invented. Its also quite close to engineering and analysis in some ways, there were very custom solutions to a problem he faced. TLDR - Gandhi found a way to neutralize massive weaknesses which would stop typical revolutionary movements by flipping them on their head. 1) India was incredibly divided, and the divisions were a core pillar of how India was run. This was a major challenge that had multiple attempts to deal with the Brits futile. 2) Indians were impoverished, not something you would consider dry tinder ready to throw their lives down in battle. The techniques used are very interesting because they either negated these challenges, or converted them into strengths. Gandhi outright challenged untouchability, whether people approved of his choice or didn’t. Given his upper class roots and the way he chose to live his life, it meant that many accusations to discredit him simply didn’t hold. That credibility was one section of the foundation. The other foundations were the effectiveness of non violence. You have a massive divided population, which had lost its dignity and self determination, and would require massive resources to arm and coordinate them. Non cooperation and non violence flipped those constraints and broke many assumptions of how power operated. Non cooperation meant that choice was immediately returned to everyone in India. You regained agency to choose. Non violence returned agency and dignity to people. It meant that you didn’t need a weapon to stand up for yourself. It means that you recognized the weakness of your position, and you still could choose to stand for yourself without having to become what the attacker wanted you to become. Getting beaten and not retaliating is hard, it means not responding to many base instincts carved into our biology. Standing there and taking it removed the accusation of cowardice and weakness. It’s the difficult choice that makes you human. But on their own these are moral stands, not effective politics. Gandhi’s tactics targeted the economic machine which is what mattered to the British empire. He was also very active with the press, during the salt march there were talks with Press every night when they rested. Non violent communication was born from these techniques. Mandela and MLK both found him inspiring - and both said that there was a limit to the efficacy of Gandhian techniques in their respective scenarios. In the end it’s the pragmatism and the uplifting nature of these techniques and ideas that I find fascinating.

dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago

> You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud. That is one of the problems that is often omitted but matters a lot. After Putin dies, what kind of legacy will he leave for Russians? They already struggle with the attitude to adapt. Many choose to ignore it totally, which seems logical because as ordinary citizens they have zero influence on the war. What about their children, though? You learn that your country attacked another one, your compatriots were torturing, mutilating, raping and murdering innocent civilians. You can no longer pretend, as all countries do, that they are the righteous one. Just like Germany after WW2, you need to live with this stain.

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
You missed the 'l' in [S]tain'

metalmangler 2y ago

My father was born in Patiyalla, Punjab and at a time just before WW2, Gandi ji would make it his habbit to stay and rest in a small leanto, attached to the back of a local mosque in Patiyala, and while there, he forbade contact with adults. So familys would send.there children to sit at the great mans feet. My father was the child of land owners and went to be there with Ghandi ji, but things did not go well for him, he sat with the children of the other worthies in this hut, very likely feeling out out, when another small child ducked in, upon which my father told this child "get out bunghi" ,bunghi bieng a slur against the class and caste of thus child, and dismissing such was(and is) something that my father is accustomed to. Ghandu ji, spoke up and said ,"NO!, you are a bhungi, we are all bhungi!" and brought this child to sit beside him facing the rest. And in the ensuing years, with the war and partition, and my family going through horror and 17 or our close and extended family dieing, has left me with some different views. Ghandi did try, but it is his signature beside that of mountbattens, that precipitated a war of ethnic clensing in the break up of india.Hitler and stallin would be envious of the body count that came after that signature. And the best I can say for Ghandi is that at the crucial moment, he blinked.

samdung 2y ago

The British committed more atrocities (going by body count) in the 20 odd years of India's "peaceful freedom movement" headed by MKG. 1919 - Jallianwala Bagh massacre (over 1500 shot dead in a few minutes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre 1943 - Bengal famine of 1943 (over 3 million dead). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 1947 - Partition of India (2 million deaths) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India Indian school text books just gloss over British brutality in India.

ConfiYeti 2y ago
I've read about all three in Indian school textbooks. (Local state board, c. late 2000s)
intended 2y ago
My suspicion is that many people who didn’t read their subjects, or just memorized the answers, have no recollection of what they studied. As a result they bring up these accusations. All of this was covered in our text books. From Jallianwala to the partition.
aguaviva 2y ago
So all the death and carnage that happened during the Partition was simply "committed" by the British - with no agency at all within the local populace? Seems to be a rather dehumanizing and belittling view of the latter.
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  This is called concern trolling.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    You're reading too much into it. I just found it to be a strange choice of wording.

kokofoo 2y ago

Hitler had to learn the true nature and the power of nonviolent resistance the hard way. These were Hitler's words in 1943, admitting privately to his lieutenants the difficulties of ruling the conquered regions such as Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, etc., where people were using nonviolent non-cooperation means to resist the Nazi occupation. "One cannot rule by force alone... For, in the long run, government systems are not held together by the pressure of force, but rather by the belief in the quality and the truthfulness with which they represent and promote the interests of the people."

redmajor12 2y ago

The irony here is that Hitler did want peace (if only to clear the way for an invasion of the Soviet Union), but was continuously rebuffed by the British. This book is a good record of the various peace attempts and the British misuse of them to ensnare Hess: https://archive.org/details/hitlerhessdecept0000alle https://archive.org/details/hitlerhessdecept0000alle

OutOfHere 2y ago
For some reason, Britain keeps getting a free pass for their atrocities against their own subjects (in any country) and against other Europeans (yet again with Brexit).

kazinator 2y ago

> I, therefore, appeal to you in the name of humanity to stop the war. You will lose nothing by referring all the matters of dispute between you and Great Britain to an international tribunal of your joint choice. On the contrary he had everything to lose. Backpedaling on his entire agenda, performing an about face would have been political suicide. Hitler stopping the war by himself in response to Gandhi could never have happened. Gandhi would have to have convinced not only Hitler but all of Hitler's henchmen. If they stopped the war, they would have all been finished politically. Their only rational end game was to keep marching forward. If Hitler had approached his men saying you received an awakening letter from Gandhi which changed his outlook, he would have been regarded as crazy, probably stripped of his power. > For, if a fair number of men and women be found in India who would be prepared without any ill will against the spoliators to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them ... The Nazis were fanatics who were also willing to lay down their lives and did, including Hitler.

kemmishtree 2y ago

Never heard of this letter before, but it immediately made me think of Kenneth Patchen's The Journal of Albion Moonlight. To me it's a beautiful surrealistic masterpiece, written in the early 1940s, while Hitler was still alive. Hitler is a minor character, who memorably appears in a passage where he meets Jesus. I won't spoil it for you, but it still gives me goosebumps 25 years later thinking back on it. It's not a very long passage, but I think by itself it justifies reading the whole book, and I think it's more profound than Chaplin's The Great Dictator.