Gandhi wrote letters to Hitler and called his friend. He also told him that he admired him and gave him advice on how to deal with the British. He told him that “friend” was not just a salutation, but he really meant it. He advised the Jews to commit mass suicide.
Noticias de Rupia | Nouvelles de Roupie | Rupiennachrichten | ??????? ????? | ???? | Roepienieuws | Rupi Nyheter | ??????? | Notizie di Rupia | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | DefensebriefsIntellibriefs Translate to: | RUPEE NEWS | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | ????? ????? |
“We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi of India to Adolph Hitler of Germany
| NEW YORK | RUPEE NEWS | March 8th, 2008 | Various authors: Rahul Gandhi, Arun Gandhi, Dr. Singh, Dr. Watson, Saijorni Naidu, D.r Bose, Time Magazine etc: The so called prophet of non-violence had some really nasty things to say about the Jews, and his support for the Booer and British wars was a slap in the face of “ahimsa” (non-violence). Gandhi’s racism. The truth behind the mask. Behold Sergeant Major Gandhi who supported the British in the Boer war, against the Zulu rebellion. Behold the prophet of peace who worked to stratify the South African society.
Mohandas Gandhi described an African tribe as “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136) Mohandas Gandhi’s description of black inmates. [Kaffirs are a tribe in South Africa]
- Prime Minister of Great Britian Lord Atlee: Gandhi’s role in UK decision to leave India was MINIMAL
- Sex Antics of Mohandas Gandhi: His Failures, Pedophilia, Adultery, Incest, Sexual Perversion & Fetishes
Gandhi’s horrific advice to Jews—Commit mass suicide in the face of Nazi barbarism.
( Note from the Editor: Shooting the messenger syndrome? We don’t make up the news, we simply report it. The facts presented in this article are based upon the books on Mr. Gandhi (“Mohandas“, “Gandhi on trial” and others). If you have problems with the facts represented here, please send your letter to the two grandsons of Gandhi (Arun Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi), Dr Singh, Dr. Watson, Saijorni Naindu, Mr. Bose and Time magazine etc. Quotes are by Mr. Gandhi himself. A complete Bibliography is provided. These are others are responsible for the content of this article.
- Sex life of Mohandas Gandhi, his failures and sexual perversion.
- The myth of Mohandas K. Gandhi debunked. He gets an “F” on South Africa, Salt Match, Non-Violence, and independence. Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support. All of them. There wasn’t a war that the prophet of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army and won a medal for his war duties.
- Gandhi condones Zulu massacres and defends the British. Aug 4 1906
- Which war did Mohandas Gandhi support? All of them. There wasn’t a war that the “prophet” of Non-Violence did not support. He was Sergeant Major in the British Army & won a medal for his combat service
Gandhi’s letters to Hitler: Glaring blemish on a tarnished leader
The halo is rusted, tilted and falling down–under the sunlight of truth. Mohandas Gandhi’s admirers do not confront embarrassing facts about their favorite saint. His critics, by contrast, gleefully keep on reminding us of a few facts concerning the Mahatma which seem to undermine his aura of wisdom and ethical superiority. One of the decisive proofs of Gandhi’s silly lack of realism, cited by both his Leftist and his Hindutva detractors, is his attempted correspondence with Adolf Hitler, undertaken with a view to persuading Germany’s dictator of the value of not attacking more countries. Gandhi was absolutely content with Nitler keeping the territories that he had already conquered. His advice to the Jews was the most horrible example of anti-Semitism in this century.
While Hitler was taking over Europe and threatening British invasion, Gandhi wrote two letters to what he called “my friend” Hitler. Besides being totally ineffective, the letters were not only politically naïve and unhelpful, given the circumstances. They put Gandhi in hot water with many groups in India and around the world, no matter how opposed he may have been to Hitler’s atrocities. In his first letter (23 July 1939), which the British government didn’t permit to go through, Gandhi seemed more defensive about his letter:
Gandhi’s first letter to Hitler: Disgusting, appeasing and horrible. Gandhi’s letter to his friend Hitler.
Gandhi addressed the abobinable Hitler as “Friend” (not just ceremonial greeting).Both of Gandhi’s letters to Hitler are addressed to “my friend”. In the case of one and all–everyone else other than Mohandas, this friendliness would be somewhat strange given the advice which Hitler had tendered to the British government concerning the suppression of Indias freedom movement.
Hitler’s solution for the Subcontinent was the same as his solution for the Jews. Kill them! During a meeting with Lord Halifax in 1938, Hitler had pledged his support to the preservation of the British empire and offered his formula for dealing with the Indian National Congress: kill Gandhi, if that isn’t enough then kill the other leaders too, if that isn’t enough then two hundred more activists, and so on until the Indian people will give up the hope of independence. Gandhi may or may not have been been unaware of Hitler’s advice. However his adoration for Hitler, his philosophy of Hitler prevented him from condemning Hitler. He blamed the Jews for the evils in Germany.
Everyone was shocked that Gandhi called the ultimate monster a “friend”.
In his first letter dated. July 23rd, 1939 (Complete Works, vol.70, p.20-21), Gandhi does mention his hesitation in addressing Hitler. But the reason is modesty rather than abhorrence:
“Friends have been urging me to write to you for the sake of humanity. But I have resisted their request, because of the feeling that any letter from me would be an impertinence.”
The war had already started. After the German occupation of Czech-inhabited Bohemia-Moravia (in violation of the 1938 Munich agreement and of the principle of the self-determination of nations which had justified the annexation of German-inhabited Austria and Sudetenland) and rising hostility with Poland, prompted him to write to the monster of the 20th century:
“Something tells me that I must not calculate and that I must make my appeal for whatever it may be worth.”
“Anyway I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you. I remain, Your sincere friend, Sd. M. MK Gandhi“.
“It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to the savage state. Must you pay that price for an object however worthy it may appear to you to be? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success?”
This stupid approach is held in utter contempt by post-War generations.
Thus, the Flemish Leftist novelist and literature professor Kristien Hemmerechts has commented (“Milosevic, Saddam, Gandhi en Hitler”, De Morgen, 16-4-1999): “In other words, Gandhi was a nave fool who tried in vain to sell his non-violence as a panacea to the Fuhrer.”
Gandhi was in effect giving carte blanche to Hitler for doing that which we know Hitler to have done, viz. the deportation of Jews and others, the mass killings, the ruthless oppression of the subject populations, the self-destructive military policies imposed on the Germans in the final stage of the war.
Indeed, even in the early (and for German civilians, low-intensity) part of the war, protests from the public forced Hitler to stop the programme of euthanasia on the handicapped.
Moreover, it was the paranoia of the Nazi leadership about Jews as a fifth column, retained from their subjective and distorted World War 1 experience of Leftist agitators in the German cities stabbing the frontline soldiers in the back, which made them decide to remove the Jews from society in Germany and the occupied countries.
Transfer of Jews:-(The Saffron Swastika, Voice of India, Delhi 2001, p.506-517, and in Elst: Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, Delhi 2001, p.48-56)
The chances for peace in 1939
At that point in time, Hitler’s “worthy object” to which Gandhi refers, the topic of heated diplomatic exchanges and indeed the professed casus belli of the impending German invasion of Poland, was the rights of the German minority in Poland along with the issue of the “corridor“. This was a planned overground railway-cum-motorway which should either link German Pomerania with German East Prussia through Polish West Prussia (including the city of Danzig); or, in case a referendum in West Prussia favoured the region’s return to Germany from which it had been taken in 1919, link land-locked Poland with a harbour set aside for the Poles on the Baltic coast through West Prussia.
In 1945, all the regions concerned were ethnically cleansed of Germans and allotted to Poland, and Germany no longer claims any of them, but in 1939 many observers felt that the German demands were reasonable or at any rate not worth opposing by military means (Who would want to die for Danzig?).
Was Poland oppressing its German and Jewish minorities? So a case that could be made would be rather tenuous. The advancement of the German minority (it goes without saying that Hitler cared less for the Polish Jews) was a just cause in the minds of the most rabid Nazis. It was also the type of cause which could be furthered through non-violent protests and mobilizing non-violent international support. It wouldn’t formally humiliate Poland by making it give up territory or sovereignty, so perhaps the Polish government could be peacefully persuaded to change its ways regarding the minorities. Gandhi was wrong once again.
The question of the corridor was less manageable, as it did involve territory and hence unmistakable face-losing concessions by one of the parties. The apprehension which troubled the Poles and their well-wishers was that the demand of a corridor was merely the reasonable-sounding opening move of a total conquest of Poland. It is difficult to estimate Nazi Germany’s exact plans for the conquest of the world.
Among the informed public, it is still widely believed that the Nazis aimed at conquering the world, no less. Hitler was ready to “respect” the British empire, for a while.
In unconvincing peace offers to France and Britain in autumn 1939 and throughout 1940, Hitler proposed to “withdraw” (leaving behond pro-Hitler puppet regimes) from all historically non-German territories (which would still leave him in control of Austria, Sudetenland, West Prussia and some smaller border regions of Poland and, from May-June 1940 on, also Luxemburg, the Belgian East Cantons and French Elzas-Lotharingen) and maintain a territorial status-quo thenceforth.
For the idiots living in “la la land” it is possible that he meant it when he agreed to limit his territorial ambitions to historically German regions, at least where the competition consisted of allied or somehow respected nations such as the Italians or the French. However, in the case of the despised Slavic countries Poland and Ukraine, the fear of German conquest was more thoroughly justified.
In early 1918, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the fledgling Soviet Union gave Germany control of Poland and western Ukraine. As a soldier, Hitler had applauded this gain of “living space”, which was to be settled with German farmers after moving the Slavs to Siberia. It was also this brief gain which made the subsequent defeat in World War 1 and the implied loss of territory so unbearable for Hitler and many Germans of his generation.
There is no doubt that the Nazi leaders had an eye on these fertile territories for a future expansion of Germany. It was less certain that they wanted to conduct this annexation at once: would they abide by an agreement on a mere corridor if one were concluded, respecting Poland’s sovereignty over the rest of its territory?
To the appeasers, the stupid course was not to take chances and contain Hitler’s expansionism by military deterrence. As Poland itself could not provide this, it sought and received the assurance of help from Britain and France. This implied that a brief local war triggered by German aggression against Poland would turn into a protracted international war on the model of the Serb-Austrian crisis of 1914 triggering the Great War now known as World War 1. It was at this point that Gandhi asked Hitler to desist from any plans of invading Poland. Gandhi was stupid in assuming that an “Aryan” would listen to a brown man from the colonies.
There can be no doubt that this was an idiotic demand for a pacifist to make. Was it perhaps a foolish demand, in the sense that no words should have been wasted on Hitler? YES!
Gandhi’s second letter to Hitler: Horrible, Racist, Non-sensical
On December 24th, 1940, on the eve of Christmas, which to Christians is a day of peace when the weapons are silenced, Gandhi wrote a lengthy second letter to Hitler.
The world situation at that time was as follows: Germany and Italy controlled most of Europe and seemed set to decide the war in their favour, the German-Soviet pact concluded in August 1939 was still in force, and under Winston Churchill, a lonely Great Britain was continuing the war it had declared on Germany immediately after Germany’s invasion of Poland in September 1939.
On this occasion, Gandhi took the trouble of justifying his addressing Hitler as “my friend” and closing his letter with “your sincere friend“, in a brief statement of what exactly he stood for: “That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed.”
RACIST DOCTRINE: This very racist reason to befriend Hitler, what Gandhi goes on to call the “doctrine of universal friendship“, contrasts with the manner in which he addressed the British courts in South Africa out of which he was thrown out.
Gandhi certainly earned the ire of post-war public opinion by stating:
“We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.”
Anyone having an iota of knowledge including Gandhi, was practically an accomplice to Hitlers crimes. However, while not giving up on the chance of converting Hitler to more peaceful ways, Gandhi was not that mild in judging the crimes Hitler had already committed. In particular, he criticized the already well-publicized Nazi conviction that the strong have a right to subdue the weak:
“But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in human friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity.”
“But ours is a unique position. We resist British imperialism no less than Nazism.” To Gandhi, British imperialism is closely akin to Nazi imperialism: “If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny.”
In outlining his position vis-a-vis British imperialism, Gandhi at once explained his attitude vis-a-vis Nazism: “Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battle-field.”
In a slogan: “The rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls.”
To this, Hitler probably made a mental comment that prisoners, such as the many people whom he himself was locking away, were quite entitled to their souls, as long as they left their land as living space and their bodies as slave labour to the rulers.
Gandhi supported the British Empire. Unlike many of his countrymen, Gandhi rejected the idea of achieving freedom from British rule with German help:
“We know what the British heel means for us and the non-European races of the world. But we would never wish to end the British rule with German aid.”
Instead, Gandhi explained to Hitler, the non-violent method could defeat “a combination of all the most violent forces in the world”.
“If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud.”
It was a strange pacifist who condoned this torrent of violence. Gandhi extended the life of British Empire by helping UK wars
Gandhis utterances regarding Nazism leave a lot of doubt about his ephimeral hostility to this militaristic and freedom-hating doctrine. He spported every British war, yet, he opposed war against Nazism.
It is not certain that this would have worked, but then Gandhism is not synonymous with effectiveness. Gandhis methods were unsuccessful in dissuading the British from holding on to India.
From that angle, it simply remains an open question, an untried experiment, whether the Gandhian approach could have succeeded in preventing World War 2. By contrast, there simply cannot be two opinions on whether that approach of non-violent dissuasion would have been Gandhian.
Our judgment of his letters to Hitler must be the same as our judgment of Gandhism itself: either both represented a lofty ethical alternative to the more common methods of power politics, or both were erroneous and ridiculous.
As if this weren’t enough of political naiveté` and gratuitous advice to other groups he didn’t know much about, Stanley Wolpert refers to Gandhi’s “open” letter to the British people (1940) as another unhelpful gesture:
“I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings… If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered… I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty’s government, should they consider them of any practical use in enhancing my appeal.” Among those who criticized this “open” letter, perhaps Sri Aurobindo (in his book ‘India’s Rebirth’) put it most succinctly: “He must be a little cracked.”
ACTUAL QUOTES ON GANDHI’S RACISM:
The Durban Post Office: One of Gandhi’s major “achievements” in South Africa was to promote racial segregation by refusing to share a post office door with the black natives.
- “A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” [local native of South Africa] (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)
- Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs [local native of South Africa] who will not work.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)
- “Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs [local native of South Africa] from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)
- Gandhi’s description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)
The land of Gandhi continues with the infatuation of Hitler. The Swastika is the future flag of India and Narendar Modi is a Hitler admirer supported by the likes of Govorner Bobby Jindal in Lousiana, USA. Modi’s “backlash” scheme. Gujarat genocide & Election win again?
- Banglore Billet: Indian Muslims And The Media By Nigar Ataulla.
- BJP and RSS age old tactics:
- False Flag: Low intensity events a Modi signal to unleash anti-Muslim pograms?
- Gujerat explodes in anti-Modi frenzy: India union in trouble
- Is India a Failed State? The chimera and the facts of slick marketing schemes by “India Inc.”
- 2008: Hindu fundamentalism on the rise in “India” funded by US Gujeratis.
- India: BJP or INC couldn’t tolerate a Dalit woman as PM-Mayawati
- India: Dalit Aparthied in plain site. World apathy is appaling!
Hitler … he’s huge in India
The Telegraph reports:
“Students are increasingly coming in asking for it and we’re happy to sell it to them,“ said Sohin Lakhani, owner of Mumbai-based Embassy books who reprints Mein Kampf every quarter and shrugs off any moral issues in publishing the book.
“They see it as a kind of success story where one man can have a vision, work out a plan on how to implement it and then successfully complete it”.
Jaico Publishing House, one of the publishers in India, said it reprints a new edition of the book at least twice a year to meet growing demand.
“We were the first company to publish the book in India and there are now six other Indian publishers of the book, although we were first to take a chance on it,“ said Jaico’s chief editor, R H Sharma, who dismissed any moral issues in publishing Mein Kampf.
“The initial print run of 2,000 copies in 2003 sold out immediately and we knew we had a best-seller on our hands. Since then the numbers have increased every year to around 15,000 copies until last year when we sold 10,000 copies over a six-month period in our Delhi shops,“ he added.
Best seller … that’s an interesting choice of words. I can only guess that “Jewish Wisdom for Business Success“ is not doing as well in India.
Even if you can stomach the vitriol, paranoia, militarism and crude racism, the book is so long and tedious that even Hitler’s ally Mussolini didn’t manage to plough his way through it, once apparently dismissing it as ‘a boring tome that I never been able to read’ (Churchill concurred, calling it ‘turgid, verbose [and] shapeless’). So its credentials as a management text seem rather dubious.
Wait, so just blaming the Jews isn’t the way to get ahead in the working world? I have so much to learn.
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg in Jewish Journal