He didn’t. The quotes in these tweets are fake. If I search for these quotes these tweets are the only results. Twitter is a hostile platform to reality as reality can get in the way of virality. Hence why you never see sources on twitter. This was likely written by someone with only a passing familiarity with gandhi’s position on WWII who probably guessed at how he would speak based on his character in Civ.
What did gandhi actually think the Britiish should do in 1940? In his actual words:
I want you to fight Nazism without arms, or, if I am to retain the military terminology, with non-violent arms. I would like 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. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds. 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, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.
Basically he was speaking for an extreme form of non-violent civil disobedience, not capitulation.
Also a famous gandhi quote: “Stop believing everything you see on twitter you gullible rube”
A lot of good that’d do for the people being rounded up to get gassed.
Gandhi was not always right with his beliefs.
It’s important to remember: few outside of Germany knew that concentration camps existed, certainly not the scale of them or how appalling the conditions were. Consider the amount of information that Gandhi could reasonably have about activity in Germany and Europe. As far as he was concerned, the evil empire dominating his country was just having a costly spat with the evil empire dominating another country, sacrificing the welfare of his people for those of their neighbours in Europe.
few outside of Germany knew that concentration camps existed
The creation of concentration camps was widely advertised in Nazi propaganda, as a show of force to intimidate dissidents. It was the later death camps that were secret: the ones that were designed for no purpose but to do murder at industrial scale.
It wasn’t an actual secret. All the Wehrmacht officers knew, all the people in the towns nearby knew, all the cops knew, all the Ally leadership knew.
If the Ally leadership knew, why didn’t they use that information as propoganda for their war efforts?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abandonment_of_the_Jews
For whatever reason, they didn’t even think it was worth bombing the rail systems that fed the camps.
Roosevelt didn’t care. Churchill in particular publicly endorsed Aryan race theory before the war so “not caring” is the most charitable interpretation.
Allied leadership was very wary of running into the issue they did in WW1 - where the exaggeration of German war crimes discredited the propaganda apparatus of Britain. As they became more aware of the nature and extent of the death camps, Allied leadership opted to document evidence for the postwar tribunals rather than engage in a war of accusation and denial against Nazi Germany which could have seriously damaged the short-term credibility of their propaganda efforts.
Whether this was the right choice is another question entirely.
I don’t think it was confirmed until they were starting to get liberated, was it? Like it was probably predicted they were there, but that’s a pretty tough allegation to put out there and then be wrong on, victors or not.
Polish partisans had been telling Allied Command about them for years.
Iirc there was even an absolute madlad of a Jewish Polish war hero who let himself get sent to a death camp so he could gather evidence and escape to get better evidence.
Bullshit. People knew, they aren’t dumb. The polish underground reported on them regularly and even had operatives inside them. People living around them knew they were death camps. You cannot commit such slaughter and somehow magically hide it.
Average people simply didn’t have access to information at the scale we now enjoy at that time. Leaders of countries and militaries might know, but unless it was being reported by wire services and in local newspapers, the average person would have had no rational way of finding out about it.
People in Poland knew. That’s what I’m certain of. I know because my grandparents mentioned it and they were “average people”, far away from the camps.
good point
I would like 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. You will give all these but neither your souls, nor your minds. 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, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.
If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.
Religious fanatics rarely deserve the adulation their beliefs receive.
Iirc this asshole denied penicillin to his wife when she was dying, but then later when he needed it he was all for the miracles of modern technology.
Ah yes, the pre-emptive starving several years before the war
I don’t understand your comment, the war started in 1939, Great Britain joined the war 3 days after Hitler invaded Poland. The famine occured in 1943.
Your maths is terrible?
Oh sorry, I spoke about Holodomor.
I mean, it feels like the tweet explained it well (I know nothing of the subject, but if the tweet is accurate I don’t feel it needs any more explaining).
The dude was a pedo, so who knows what really went on inside his noggin.
he was?
Debatable, I guess. Certainly by inclination if not necessarily a rapist.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ghandi-slept-grandniece-historian-tells-uk-government-1460499
He did this super weird temptation trial thing, took baths them, etc. He took a vow of chastity when he was 38, but who knows what he was getting up to before then?
I’d heard the niece was younger than 18 when it started but I don’t know enough of the details to say that source is wrong. What he certainly was was a racist and a sexist… Who also ended the British Empire and they’re still a bunch of salty racist sexists themselves so die mad about it.
yeah thats yucky, but idk if was really hush-hush considering he wrote it down himself for publishing.
he was unquestionably racist and sexist through a modern lens but the question with this stuff is how it contrasts with the world around the person.
i always point to Hergé, whose early works were super racist by today’s standard because they followed the style at the time. not using the stereotypes at that point would have made eg Tintin in the Congo harder to read for contemporary audiences due to the shared cultural understanding. later books completely changed in tone as the century progressed.
the dude was a pedo
How is that related to his opinions on international politics? Just because someone is terrible in one aspect of their life, doesn’t mean the rest of their ideas have to be thrown out.
Well let me stop you there. His opinion on anything was shit that didn’t deserve a moment of time, due to the fact he was a pedo. Better Mr Fish?
Edit: Mr Fish: “I’m just saying I wouldn’t mind hearing what Jeffery Epstien would say over the Clean Air Act.”
I’m just saying I wouldn’t mind hearing what Jeffery epstien would say over the clean air act
Not what I’m saying. My point is that one flaw, even one as terrible as pedophilia, doesn’t influence all of a person’s opinions. Sure, I wouldn’t ask Gandhi for his views on healthy relationships, and having learned about this I have lost pretty much all respect for him as a person. But his opinions on international politics should be reasonable because of his role as a leader of a protest movement, and likely aren’t impacted by him being a pedo.
With your Epstien example, is there reason to think his opinions on climate science are more well informed than the average person’s? Do you think his role of running his pedo island would impact his views on topics like the clean air act?
The trouble with your line of thinking is that we’d run out of acceptable people’s opinions really quickly. No one is perfect, and it will usually be possible to frame someone’s flaws in a way that makes them a horrible person in all aspects and never worth hearing out. When it gets to “Bob is a racist, Jim is a pedo, Fred is a domestic abuser” (to be clear, in not saying these are equally bad or anything, just some examples of ‘this person is inherently bad because of one thing’) and so on about everyone, who’s left to be worth discussing things with?
If it turned out that Newton had a thing for kids, would you advocate for throwing out his laws?
Well, I’d certainly want someone else to check his work first!
But even that is beside the point. Gandhi’s achievements aren’t in an inherently rational and objective field. No matter who you are, gravity works the same.
But instead Gandhi’s field is morals, ethics and politics. Those are inherently subjective and about opinions. If you have a really shitty opinion, then yeah, I’ll question your other opinions.
Probably wouldn’t hold him up as a moral role model
deleted by creator
That’s a different question.
If you want to admit your chosen comparison was disingenuous I don’t mind.
Personally I’d have gone with Aristotelian ethics, as he was a noted slavery defender.
Are we having the same conversation?
Apples and battleships here.
