That's ridiculous. He was addressing the leader of one of the axis of the Great War when the War was just about to start (and then, just after), there was no way to tell how the conflict would develop, and when most of the atrocities Hitler became infamous for had not been committed, or at least were not widely known yet. It's easy to now talk about Hitler as the Devil re-incarnated, but at the time, he was a world leader and addressing him like you probably would like Gandhi to have done, as a despicable human being, would probably only contribute to Hitler's warring inclinations.
If you were to, today, write to a world leader like Putin or Trump, trying to convince them to not start a war that could destroy a large percentage of humanity, would you not want to start your letter in a diplomatic manner in order to maybe be heard and stop an extremely horrific event, despite how undignified they may be as a person in your eyes?
Gandhi's letters you linked to only show how he tried as hard as he could to diplomatically convince Hitler that war was not the only solution... imagine if he had succeeded in that, how much suffering could have been avoided!
As Gandhi said in one of the letters, winning a war doesn't prove you're in the right, it only proves you had greater capability for destruction. But Hitler, of course, thought both that he was in the right AND that nothing could beat his superior army and race. He was wrong in both accounts, but he was right in that his power for destruction was enormous, and the result was the most horrific episode in human history.
> Gandhi's letters you linked to only show how he tried as hard as he could to diplomatically convince Hitler that war was not the only solution... imagine if he had succeeded in that, how much suffering could have been avoided!
I would really like to know what you think the Hitlers problem was. The problems I am aware about were generally solvable only by the war and violence.
> he was a world leader and addressing him like you probably would like Gandhi to have done, as a despicable human being, would probably only contribute to Hitler's warring inclinations.
No, really not as he was planning the war for years already by that point. At that point Ghandhi or anybody elses foreign acceptance was completely moot.
And the comment I responded to did the latter instead of former. All too many people when they want to defend someone from the past will proceed into some kind alternative past, where there was nothing special about Germany pre-WWII.
The alternative past in which the last two paragraphs do not come accross as completely ridiculous but feel good nonsense. That has little to do with Ghandi.
I don't understand. If anything, these letters just made me respect the man more. If you had linked examples of the letter of his youth in SA, with racist undertones, maybe it would have been somewhat relevant with the previous sentence "But as always with those with a PC agenda", but those letters to Hitler clearly shows the inner world of a great man, no?
Anyway, thank you for the link, it was extremely interesting.
> 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. I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity who have been living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship view your action. 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. 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 universal 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. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms. But ours is a unique position. We resist British Imperialism no less than Nazism. 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. 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. Ours is an unarmed revolt against the British rule. But whether we convert them or not, we are determined to make their rule impossible by non-violent non-co-operation. It is a method in its nature indefensible. It is based on the knowledge that no spoliator can compass his end without a certain degree of co-operation, willing or compulsory, of the victim. Our rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls. They can have the former only by complete destruction of every Indian-man, woman and child. That all may not rise to that degree of heroism and that a fair amount of frightfulness can bend the back of revolt is true but the argument would be beside the point. 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 ask you to believe me when I say that you will find an unexpected number of such men and women in India. They have been having that training for the past 20 years. We have been trying for the past half a century to throw off the British rule. The movement of independence has been never so strong as now. The most powerful political organization, I mean the Indian National Congress, is trying to achieve this end. We have attained a very fair measure of success through nonviolent effort. We were groping for the right means to combat the most organized violence in the world which the British power represents. You have challenged it. It remains to be seen which is the better organized, the German or the British. 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. We have found in non-violence a force which, if organized, can without doubt match itself against a combination of all the most violent forces in the world. In nonviolent technique, as I have said, there is no such thing as defeat. It is all ‘do or die’ without killing or hurting. It can be used practically without money and obviously without the aid of science of destruction which you have brought to such perfection. It is a marvel to me that you do not see that it is nobody’s monopoly. 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. They cannot take pride in a recital of cruel deed, however skilfully planned. 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. If you attain success in the war, it will not prove that you were in the right. It will only prove that your power of destruction was greater. Whereas an award by an impartial tribunal will show as far as it is humanly possible which party was in the right. You know that not long ago I made an appeal to every Briton to accept my method of non-violent resistance. I did it because the British know me as a friend though a rebel. I am a stranger to you and your people. I have not the courage to make you the appeal I made to every Briton. Not that it would not apply to you with the same force as to the British. But my present proposal is much simple because much more practical and familiar. During this season when the hearts of the peoples of Europe yearn for peace, we have suspended even our own peaceful struggle. Is it too much to ask you to make an effort for peace during a time which may mean nothing to you personally but which must mean much to the millions of Europeans whose dumb cry for peace I hear, for my ears are attuned to hearing the dumb millions?