I don't know what relation this has to the discussion of the non-violence discussion you referenced, but Gandhi was pretty useless to most people under oppression, including under his "friend" Adolf Hitler:

http://www.zimbio.com/Rahul+Gandhi+/articles/75/Gandhi+adored+friend+Hitler+Today+BJP+Modi
 

Shoot, try this.
 

I just skimmed it, but what's your point? Hitler had a friend in Jesus, too. Gandhi was urging Hitler not to wage war. This makes Gandhi a bad guy?
 

That Gandhi was useless to the cause of peace. Which he was. He considered Adolf Hitler a friend and couldn't care less about the fate of Jews in Europe.

So I guess that makes him a bad guy, yeah.
 

That Gandhi was useless to the cause of peace. Which he was.

Here we go again. Did FDR and Churchill give us peace? They didn't ask Hitler to be a nice guy, they instead threatened him. And then we had World War II. Pretty useless if you're trying to avoid mass murders.

BTW I didn't read all the allegations of anti-Semitism. But if your point is merely, "Gandhi should've titled the letter, 'Dear jerk, you better not hurt those people or I'll be really mad!'" then I think your point is rather trivial.
 

Jay,

Let me restate my original point since we're devolving into one-liners. I am saying that it is pointless to "prove" Gandhi's ideas were impotent, by pointing out that they wouldn't have deterred Hitler. This is like saying, "Heart surgery is obviously stupid, since they tried it on my uncle and he died."

Plenty of people in Nazi Germany tried to take out Hitler with violence, and he killed them. So I could just as easily say that this "proves" violence doesn't work, since after all violence failed to stop Hitler.

In the same vein, you are mocking Gandhi for writing Hitler a letter urging him not to invade other countries. "Ha ha what a loser, that letter didn't stop Hitler."

Right, and by the same token, Great Britain and France were dumb for thinking threats of force would deter Hitler from invading Poland.

To repeat, I'm not trying to make the full-blown case for pacifism here, I'm just pointing out complete non sequiturs that for some reason seem backbreaking to those who reject pacifism. The case against pacifism is not nearly as open-and-shut as people think, and the case of World War II certainly doesn't prove the efficacy of violence. For one thing, all of those Jewish people did die, despite the Allies "necessary" mass murder of Axis civilians. So you can't blame Jewish deaths on Gandhi, since Gandhi's technique of bombarding Hitler's with correspondence wasn't being used when most of the people died.
 

In the same vein, you are mocking Gandhi for writing Hitler a letter urging him not to invade other countries. "Ha ha what a loser, that letter didn't stop Hitler."

Actually, I'm only really stating that I think Gandhi was an idiot. I'm not really trying to make a comment on non-violence or what caused World War II. (Not enough time or energy for that argument.)

I think you need to look at what he suggested the British people do, in 1940:

"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..."

(From here.)

Regardless of your position on the validity of non-violence as public policy, the above quotation is clearly that of an idiot.

I am as tired of the Gandhi hero worship as I am of FDR or anyone else who should be subject to more criticism than exists.

Also, his advice for German etc. Jews before their slaughter:

"According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence."

(From here.)
 

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay -- and claims a halo for his dishonesty." ---- Robert A. Heinlein

I hesitate to ever use WWII and specifically Hitler and Nazism as examples of anything. Hitler was insane, irrational. When we learn economics in class, we're taught to assume rational entities; the rules breakdown when you are forced to deal with irrationality. It wasn't just imperialism, it was genocide, and genocide at an unprecedented scale. I don't think there has ever been another instance of an attempt to hunt down ever last person of a specific race or culture, to eradicate them from the face of the planet, it's usually "just" limited to a single nation.

Perhaps it's a little unfair to characterize FDR and Churchill as failing to provide peace to the world. Remember, Europe did first tried appeasing Hitler, and he broke his treaties. Treaties mean nothing when dealing with an opponent who uses them as a stalling tactic to mobilize forces. The world had assumed Hitler was rational, that he had only imperialist motives. The imperialism was a indeed major motive, but it was also a means to wiping out the Jewish population of the world.

That said, violence is a tool. There is nothing inherently evil about violence, any more than there is nothing inherently good or bad about guns, hammers, or the justice system. Evil is strictly a human attribute. Even a banana can be a tool of evil, if used to poison someone allergic to bananas.

I tend to believe that The Warrior Class is still a necessary fixture of today's world. All things being equal (since we're into economic theory so much), I believe that a person studied in violence is less likely to use violence as a tool than a lay-person. The Warrior will understand the consequences of violence better than the Citizen, and will have a greater appreciation for the need to find alternative means. But when it is decided that violence is necessary, as a last resort, then the Warrior is not only prepared physically, but mentally as well, not just for the act of violence itself, but for the aftermath as well.

How many times do people get "accidentally" shot because a novice was handling a gun? Is it any less dangerous to put novices in charge of the armed forces?

The problem is not that there is too much violence in the world, the problem is that violence is not fully understood. There is no negotiating with an irrational opponent.
 

Gandhi never forced anyone to practice non-violent non-cooperation. He merely persuaded them.

He was not entirely wrong to do so - but his method may have only been effective towards democracies.

Similarly, as Prof. Robert Pape has pointed out, suicide bombers blow themselves up more frequently when they are up against a democratic occupier.

Weak people who have no army, navy and airforce need to employ whatever means they have. Drawing attention to their principled suicide in the mainstream media (which is more concerned about Britney Spears, etc. 94% of the time) is one way to do this.

Non-violence may have been suicide against a Hitler, but no-one can say that Gandhi is not a "hero" for employing principled tactics in India. If he had used violence in India, he would have been labelled a terrorist (just like the US labels Iraqis terrorists) and the British public back home would have sided with their government.