Why did gandhi ask britain to seek peace with nazi germany? (lemm.ee)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Allah@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] sabazius@lemmy.world 53 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 41 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 14 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

If the Ally leadership knew, why didn't they use that information as propoganda for their war efforts?

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[-] CMLVI@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] Allah@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

good point

[-] last_philosopher@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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"

[-] SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 2 weeks ago

A lot of good that'd do for the people being rounded up to get gassed.

Gandhi was not always right with his beliefs.

[-] SassyRamen@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

The dude was a pedo, so who knows what really went on inside his noggin.

[-] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] SassyRamen@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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."

[-] Lumidaub@feddit.org 7 points 2 weeks ago

If it turned out that Newton had a thing for kids, would you advocate for throwing out his laws?

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 2 weeks ago

Probably wouldn't hold him up as a moral role model

[-] Lumidaub@feddit.org 5 points 2 weeks ago

That's a different question.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[-] Lumidaub@feddit.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

Are we having the same conversation?

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

You don't seem to be.

[-] MSBBritain@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

Apples and battleships here.

[-] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

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?

[-] lime@feddit.nu 4 points 2 weeks ago

he was?

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[-] lime@feddit.nu 4 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

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).

[-] guy@piefed.social 5 points 2 weeks ago

Ah yes, the pre-emptive starving several years before the war

[-] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

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?

[-] guy@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

Oh sorry, I spoke about Holodomor.

this post was submitted on 27 May 2025

52 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

32515 readers

1415 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

6) No US Politics.

Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.