Ghandi: "Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs...It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions. "

Louis Fisher, Gandhi’s biographer asked him: “You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?”

Gandhi responded, “Yes, that would have been heroism.”

-The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (1950) by Louis Fisher.

Thoughts?

I frankly need to think about this a bit more.

I think I get what he means. I may be wrong and I don’t agree with this. But, what Hittler did with the jews was one of the reasons that started world war 2. If the jews had commited collective suicide the actions that led to the second world war would have never taken place. So, even though millions would be have died, they would have saved the dozens of millions of lifes and catastrophies that affected all of Europe a great part of USA, millions of lives would have been saved, millions of innocent civilians who were affected by the war would have never suffered that way.

I mean, great part of Europe suffered because it didn’t agree with what Hittler was doing and tried to help out. That led Nazi Germany to turn to its neighboring countries, it wanted to conquer and it gained the perfect excuse

So I think Ghandi was refering to the sacrifice of a culture or group for the well being of dozens of other different ones. That's why they would have been heroic (despite noone knowing).

I may be good, and my knowledge of general culture has had better days ^^’’’ But that’s what I take from it.

@Nightmelody

No. World War 2 starting had nothing to do with the Jews. Hitler wanted to expand Germany. The mass killings of Jews didn't even start until after the war started.

Sorry for that mistake. That just proves that googling something doesn't always solve thing.

Despite I having that racism was one of the causes of the war, Hittler wanting purify the race.

Whenever I think about what Hittler did to the jews first thing that pops to my mind is WW2.

BuT I guess I may be wrong. Like i said, my general culture has had better days. Than I have no possible idea of why Ghandi said that.

@NightMelody

No. Yes, Hitler and the Nazis higher ups were extremely antisemitic, but that wasn't the driving force for the war.

The driving force had to do with the Treaty of Versailles and wanting to restore Germany's power and prestige. Hitler wanted to rearm Germany and restore her borders before doing anything with the race.

The Jews were just used at scapegoats to get people in. Europe at the time had a lot of antisemitism going on. The Nazis just used the Jews to recruit people.

Thank you explaining me that. I really need to make a revision on my history books.

Hmmm. I don't know exactly how to respond to that, partly because it is difficult to understand what he meant... Having thought about it a couple more minutes, I think mostly what he was saying is that, instead of succumbing to Nazi Germany, they should have been courageous and gone with the brave death; an act that would have aroused the world and perhaps changed something. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I think it is softer coming from Gandhi, because we all know that he would have done just that rather than be pressed down.

Oh! I just had an epiphany. A mass suicide would have been the greatest act of defiance the Jews would have been able to muster. Death cannot be suppressed, and the power of that defiance would have rippled across Germany. That's what Gandhi was saying. If you're going to die by persecution, then die in defiance. And I do understand now what he meant by an act such as that being heroic.

Having extensively studied Gandhi, I may have a bit of a bias for him, but as I write this, I am beginning to understand more. Gandhi's whole life was based on similar principles, and this quote is perfectly in line with much of what we know about Gandhi. Also, he was referring to the better of two evils; the Jews were going to die, so they might as well have died a different way. It's not as though he would say they should have all jumped off a cliff if they had not been obliterated by Nazi Germany.

Whoops! This is a long post. I guess it's just my love for Gandhi. And I'm generally rambling in any of my writings without a few edits. Which I usually don't bother to do with forum posts unless it's a story or RP or something. Ugh! I'm terrible. Sorry if I stated the same point over and over again above, but that was me getting my thoughts together, and y'all saw the whole process. Dang it. I should just stop.

Correction --> It is Gandhi..not Ghandi XD
Honestly speaking, it does not strike me as weird that Gandhi said what he did, considering that he was extremely against violence and there have been times in the past when he tried to inspire people not to raise a hand even if they were being beaten to death. He served a prison sentence without much/any protest at all. Let's just say he was different (and maybe even irrational at times) altogether.
What he was probably trying to say is that if the Jews knew they were going to die by Hitler's hands - and a ghastly death at that - they should have committed suicide. That seems vague because the Jews did go into hiding to prevent capture, but not all of them were successful. Now once they were caught, they would naturally be unable to escape, and hence be unable to jump off a cliff and commit suicide. It was obvious death then. So, according to Gandhi, they had two choices :
1] They could go into hiding and depend heavily upon luck so they do not get caught.
2] They could absolutely give in to the fact that there was no escape either in hiding or from Hitler, and commit peaceful suicide.
3] Accept their bad luck once they get caught and die the ghastly way.
4] Try to commit suicide inside the concentration camp and be successful..or not. Either way, it was death awaiting them then.
Not a pretty contract nor pretty choices. I mean, if they gave in without taking a chance at hiding to know if they could survive, it would be bad. On the other hand, if they went into hiding only to get caught later on, it is bad too. No one can predict their future, and if they spent so much time debating what to do, they'd probably get shot then and there.
It's easy to make a statement but to do that without considering other circumstances and to not know the dilemma the people might fall in, is just foolish. That's what Gandhi did. Anyways, there was no point in making this statement after the massacre had taking place. Even more stupid.
Correct me if I'm mistaken (I've really forgotten all I ever studied in History XD) but wasn't all these rash actions taken by Hitler perk up the neighbouring countries towards a war? Or did they just not care?
Either way, if one was in the position of a Jew at that time, they would have first thought of going into hiding.

@vally-poo: so, what's the difference of being death by committing suicide or at Hittler's hand? The same end; death. I didn't even understand why they still need to die if they escaped until you explain it.

Hittler is being famous for killing those Jews, huh? I don't see any point of doing that, but it might be led to a racism, and stuff.

Hmmm, it's really for keeping the race in peace so he killed them. For what's purpose? Was that really important?
(sorry for my lack of knowledge)

and was Gandhi said that those Jews really supposed to die in Germany?

My understanding of Gandhi's position is that the Holocaust was able to be ignored because it happened out of sight and gradually. There are still people who want to deny that these deaths occurred and many who believed that they would be lucky and escape only to be swept up in the next round. When we ignore the injustices done to others, we encourage it to grow.

Gandhi's proposal was to do something no one could ignore. As it was, too many died and too few escaped and the world tried to pretend that they weren't witnessing genocide. I don't know if in fact an act of collective suicide would be possible or what would occur in reaction to it, but the idea is to take back the power to proclaim the truth of what was really happening.

So they should have comitted collective suicide before the massacre could have fully started...? I don't seem to understand the point and what it would help. In the beginning the Jews couldn't even know how far the Nazis would go... It's not like one day they came to might and the next day millions of Jews are dying in camps. The opression was gradual by steps and the people had no idea what was awaiting them. And even when they already were in the concentration camps I believe there were many among them who wanted to hold on and keep the hope that eventually the regime would end and they could survive and be free again some day.

This is the one reason people can't completely understand the guy. He was anti-violent and most people take that to mean that he would not harm people to an extent. But the truth is he had no extent. He would not harm people. When India refused to give Pakistan money as they were fighting and the money would be used to buy arms, this was the guy who went on a hunger strike.

Though you may not agree with him, this quote is hard to understand as we can't comprehend the person who spoke it

I guess it sort of made sense in a way... I think Gandhi was talking about after the whole mass-killing started. That if the Jews, after knowing they're being hunted and persecuted, just went ahead and killed themselves en masse, people elsewhere would notice and react, and perhaps put and end to the problem sooner. That's what I think he meant.

It still came of as really mean, though. Gandhi should have been more clear about what he meant.

After thinking about it, I have to agree with Luz_Melian. The Jews in Germany had no idea they were going to die. The oppression of the Jews started gradually. When Hitler came to power, they didn't immediately start rounding up Jews and killing them.

So, a mass suicide isn't really feasible.

as someone who has read about gandhiji from my 1st grade (maybe?) i can very assuredly say that GANDHI WAS RIGHT......everyone over here just read the quote once and misunderstand it as a call for mass suicide mission.....it was a call for peace.

look around you..the world is not what it was before the mankind came. its crying out for peace....those who understand this philosophy have succeeded. there are just two ways-way of violence and way of peace...the future depends on what we choose

@dragongirl: How is saying that 5 million people should have killed themselves and/or let themselves be killed NOT a call for mass suicide?

Regardless of the justification/reason [whatever peace is suppose to mean], Ghandi did essentially call for a mass suicide.

It's Gandhi. Ghandi means bad in Hindi.
He didn't call for suicide. The interview took place AFTER the war.

The essential meaning is that the Jews were going to die anyways. So instead of giving Germans the pleasure of killing them, they should have committed suicide themselves.

so mass suicide lol.

Can someone point me to the context how this is suppose to be taken:

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

It's like, if you're a violent person, be violent. If you're a peaceful person, be nonviolent. So apparently, nonviolence isn't for everyone y/y?

as a side note: Mao actually has a bigger death count. Nobody really seems to care about that though. :/

The Nazi propaganda dep was very powerful. They probably would have played it as a "mass cult like suicide proving how bad the Jewish religion and people are".