Gandhi's Letters to Hitler | Simon Whistler | History Teacher Reacts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- You might want to watch this first: • The Ugly Truth About G...
Gandhi set multiple letters to Adolf Hitler during his rise, and during World War 2. What types of things did Gandhi write him about? Was Gandhi a fan of his? Did Hitler even get the letters? Simon Whistler shares the letters on Today I Found Out, and Mr. Terry responds.
Original Video: • Gandhi's Letters to Hi...
Join my channel to get early-access to new videos!
/ @mrterry
Links:
Gaming channel: / mrterrygaming
Discord - / discord
Twitter: / mrterryhistory
Merch - mrterry-shop.fourthwall.com/
Twitch: / mrterryhistory
Patreon - / mrterry
Tik Tok: / mrterryhistory
Instagram: / mrterryhistory
Facebook - / mr-terry-history-10913...
Streamlabs - streamlabs.com/mrterry2
PayPal - paypal.me/mrterryhistory
For all business inquiries: contact@tablerockmanagement.com
I heard “excuse my eyes, it’s weed season” 👀👀👀😂😂😂🍃🍃🍃
I think that for Ghandi that typewriter was what is phone for us now useful but tricky.Remember what year was and in what state was India.
Thanks. Very informative video. Brits intercepting 1st letter: I thnk likely that appeasement was really a strategy to try to buy time to prepare for an inevitable Nazi attack to the west. If so, Brits probably wanted to avoid any chance of even appearance of any cordial exchange of ideas btwn Nazis and popular Indian figure. They realized importance of a unified India in coming war. If Hitler responded, he would have lied his ass off to improve popular opinion of himself in India.
My only quibble is the IMHO implication that Germany was in horrible economic shape for whole 10+ years since WW1. Some might infer that large majority of the popuation supported H out of desperation when he grabbed power. The German economy was good overall after its hyperinflation was tamed until Great Depression. There were additional important factors for H's rise, though unstable macro history since WW1 played a role.
But it is true that at the time unsavory regimes both left and right appeared to do better than liberal democracies, and they they therefor gained admiration.
The problem w Nazi econ success was that it was unsustainable w/o access to very cheap raw materials. H's ideology, desire for general revenge against all, and econ necessity required that needed resources be taken by conquest (conquest wrongly expected to be cheap sustainable way to get them).
Edit: I agree w others that H just thought people like Gandhi were chumps who worried about chump things. Just fools who might be useful to manipulate.
I think that Ghandi's advice would be ignored on two fronts. One, the resulting war I think was likely a big picture proponent Hitler had possibly anticipated from his actions, and two I don't think Hitler would take advice from Ghandi over his skin color.
I’m pretty sure the Aryans and Indians are pretty closely related so maybe the latter might not be true.
@@otheirony618 Except the former was fictional and was supposed to have blond hair and blue eyes. So I don't think mustache man would see it that way.
@@otheirony618Well, Hitler wasn’t interested in the actual historical origins of the term, nor that in reality was an ethnocultural and linguistic identity, not some magic fantasy race
@@MerennulliHahaha exactly
Both Aryan Europeans and Indians were Caucasian peoples. Though the India subset like the Ethiopian subset did absorb neighboring traits. In India's case mainly Mongol traces and in Ethiopian case the black skin and main Caucasian definer is the lack of a flattened nose. Also the Ethiopian subset did have African roots prior to mixing in Israel.
Regarding the contents of Gandhi's second letter, I'm reminded of what Machiavelli wrote about Princes (i.e., leaders) who obtain power through acts of cruelty:
"Those [cruelties] may be called properly used...that are applied at one blow and are necessary to one’s security, and that are not persisted in afterwards unless they can be turned to the advantage of the subjects. The badly employed are those which, notwithstanding they may be few in the commencement, multiply with time rather than decrease. Those who practise the first system are able, by aid of God or man, to mitigate in some degree their rule, as Agathocles did. It is impossible for those who follow the other to maintain themselves."
Hitler's Final Solution necessitated that he continue to commit acts of cruelty beyond what were necessary to secure his rise to power and improve the lot of the German people, and it was a short step from that to abusing the rights and freedoms of the rest of Germany. In Machiavelli's philosophy, Hitler's style of rule was ultimately self-defeating because he couldn't maintain the goodwill of a Germany that feared him and a Europe/America that hated him. If he had been content with bringing Germany back from financial ruin and strengthening it as a military power, I think THAT might have been something the German people of the time could have been proud of.
Maybe he was more anti-British than pro-German? Like parts of Ireland, Vichy, &etc?
Cope harder.
9:22 I mean, you never know if there's something encoded in the message. Even if it's a remote chance, last thing you want is the people in british india rallying behind (or being supplied by) Germany.
7:12 A bit of context. For the British Empire, Central Europe was decidedly a side show at this point in time. There were troubles in the jewel of the Empire, the British Raj, there were troubles as well in the strategically important mandate of Palestine, not least due to Zionist militias, which were uncomfortably close to the Suez Canal, Britain's shortcut to the eastern part of its Empire, Japan was developing imperial ambitions and last but certainly not least the USSR had started a new round of the "Great Game" in Asia which Britain had thought won after the collapse of the Russian Empire.
Therefore, what Hitler did in Europe was mainly France's problem from Britain's point of view. Until 1939, though I find it rather hypocritical from France and the UK that they did declare war on Germany but failed to declare war on the USSR when it invaded Poland as well. Heck, without the Russian invasion, Poland might have very well lasted longer than France did a few months later.
Join the Discord server to suggest videos and to chat with the community! discord.gg/JvVW2cgD6n
Discord? What a wonderful way to communicate with Mr Terry stans
Thank you wikipedia context for something millions of people learned in middle school
Except for the deniers...their weird
Sadly, many people still deny The Holocaust. For example, some people at the first college I went to promoted people who denied it, as they required Passion of The Christ as part of the curriculum for Theology (this has notorious Anti-Semitic tropes, and the director is one of the deniers of The Holocaust).
@@joepattersontheartguy I remember that one story back in 79 some deniers made a contest with a cash prize to those who can prove the Holocaust existed, a survivor sent his story but was rejected. The same man took them took the deniers to court, he won , got more money than what he should had earned from the contest and the deniers had to right apologie letters to every survivor
9:39 no certainly not as it would have given Gandhi even more political clout than he already had and referring to my comment for the 7:12 timestamp, Central Europe was decidedly a side show for the Empire compared to India.
You should look into "the black hole of Calcutta". A very big blot on our Indian history. Largely forgotten here now I think
So somehow another channel has this video uploaded 4 years ago...
What?
Fanmail
09:25 Back then the Brits might wanted peace. But did they want Gandhi to be the one who secured it?
Ghandi be able to do what Neville Chamberlain couldn't. How would that look like to the world?!
Naaah, we rather have a world war than one of the most powerful countries of that time ashamed.
There seem to be many parallels to the current Russia/ukraine situation.
If history has proven to us, Ghandi underestimating and ignorance to Hitler is a gross understatement.
Bruh so what british and their appesment on hitler expansion
The end of the war to end wars countryhumans ww2 map would be a good one and taking over the world M.a.p of ww2 and the church countryhuman and rather die countryhuman animation map would be very good ones to continue with the countryhumans history stuff.
Also the history of Germany by Luvian and Axis rise (heavenly) old countryhumans animation by Luvian.
I watched this video because I too was interested to see if Hitler would have any interest with Ghandi due to the fact that in the late 30s the Nazis had sent out expeditions to places out east that included Tibet and impact of the Nazis having been in and around India have actually affected some generations of people.
I can never respect broad technology avoidance without specific purpose like what Gandhi spoke of. Paper and writing are just as much technology as the typewriter. I can certainly understand avoiding internal combustion engines for carbon reasons, certain biotech because it raises uncomfortable ethical questions, or AI because of its impact on job markets. But when the "technology" is just anything newer than a random point in time you picked or random technologies that just give you the un-warm un-fuzzies, it's not justifiable.
On the other hand, just personally deciding you're not going to use anything invented after 1802 is fine, if pointless. It only becomes a problem if you're telling others to do the same. With a typewriter. 😒
I do realize Gandhi's view on technology was pretending to be more nuanced and pretending to have a point, but from my use of "pretending" you can probably guess how I feel about his full argument. I do get where he was coming from - the early Industrial Revolution was a terrible time for everyone who couldn't afford a mansion far from the city, but the advocacy for manual labor wasn't really as nuanced as he wanted it to be seen as. It was an advocacy for conveniences up to an arbitrary point that felt nice to him. And it doesn't feed people. He saw it as a system of self-reliance at a village level, but that is advocating for dismantling the large scale efficiencies that make feeding populations like that of India even remotely possible. And more to the point, it doesn't give long term self-reliance. It just creates a temporary situation which is eminently vulnerable to outside forces.
2 important notes about Gandhi's strategy. First, it requires a (somewhat) humane opponent. Gandhi's tactics would not have worked with someone like Stalin. Second, a lot of non violent protests aren't actually all that passive. His hunger strike, for example. The British at first weren't particularly impressed. If some skinny brown guy really wanted to starve himself why should they care. During WW2, between 1 and 3.5 million would starve in the Bengali Famine. It was when Gandhi's followers started to get worried about his well being that they took notice. If he actually died, they were looking at a massive uprising. It was essentially the hostage scene from Blazing Saddles.
'Please be a lamb and don't take over the world just because you definitely could. Because that wouldn't be cool, man. Peace.'
Sincerely, Gandhi
599 views in 1 hour bro fell off