HITLER Vs GANDHI

[Marwan2010]

Is non violence relevant today? In fact has it ever been relevant ever? Gandhi was a champion of non violence, but then did he really gain independence for India through his non violent methods? I doubt that!

Hitler > Could he have been transformed with Love - I doubt that! So Had Military action against Germany not taken place, then the world would be a different map today.

Would Gandhi have survived, if his enemy was Hitler and not the British? I doubt it
Hitler would have exterminated him, just as he had killed millions. with Gandhi dead,
the non violence end!

Buddha talks a lot non violence, The Hindus virtually wiped out Buddhism out of India, a fact very few people know! > did non violence achieve anything for Buddhism? just as the Islamic invaders wiped out Hinduism and Buddhism from the present day Afghanistan and Pakistan. So yet again shows, that violence did win in the end.

Americans eliminated Saddaam - did he have WMD? The only weapon he had was to dump the dollar, and if successful, then that was end of America. So yet again Violence was a winner, it was through violent means that Iraq was conquered!

History shows that the strong wins, the one who uses force wins > so i am often comfronted with the fact that does Love has no purpose.? when violence wins!

 

[Splitlink]

I think that power finally overreaches itself and, also, becomes corrupt from within. All he empires and dictatorships have done that, in their time, even the feared Soviet Russia in recent years. How could the UK, possibly, hold onto its empire, especially after fighting WWII.

American imperialism , gained by economic power and the mighty dollar, will also end and, if the next one is China, as lots say will be the case, it, too, will give way to something else.

I don't think that love has any chance, at all. Human greed will always beat it.

 

[zambuck]

....Hypothetical assumptions about what if...and I doubt that...and I doubt this are merely discussion points....interesting they may be, and debatable, but it is the fact and what 'is' and what has happened, that is more relevant....

...One thing Man has learned from history is that Man has learned nothing from it..!

 

[allisa]

Gandhi vs Hitler They both are the great leaders in that past. We all have their memory, Why they both known for, Hitler for torture and Gandhi for its non violence. Who is remember respectfully Gandhi or Hitler, as we all know answer is Gandhi. That a big different in torture and love. Gandhi say if we bear torture its also a sin so, oppose it. We have remember that after every night there will morning.

 

[HawkTrader]

Is non violence relevant today? In fact has it ever been relevant ever? Gandhi was a champion of non violence, but then did he really gain independence for India through his non violent methods? I doubt that!

Hitler > Could he have been transformed with Love - I doubt that! So Had Military action against Germany not taken place, then the world would be a different map today.

Would Gandhi have survived, if his enemy was Hitler and not the British? I doubt it
Hitler would have exterminated him, just as he had killed millions. with Gandhi dead,
the non violence end!

Buddha talks a lot non violence, The Hindus virtually wiped out Buddhism out of India, a fact very few people know! > did non violence achieve anything for Buddhism? just as the Islamic invaders wiped out Hinduism and Buddhism from the present day Afghanistan and Pakistan. So yet again shows, that violence did win in the end.

Americans eliminated Saddaam - did he have WMD? The only weapon he had was to dump the dollar, and if successful, then that was end of America. So yet again Violence was a winner, it was through violent means that Iraq was conquered!

History shows that the strong wins, the one who uses force wins > so i am often comfronted with the fact that does Love has no purpose.? when violence wins!

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The point of the Buddhism peace is that it's wrong to be violent, nobody can say whether A or B has a right to live because nobody atually knows. So saying "If the Buddhists had fought back against the Muslims in Pakistan a few hundered years ago they would have won" is complete nonsense. The fact they didn't fight shows that they won, because they were right all along. Surely if they keep like this and people follow, there wouldn't be any need to fight in the first place?

 

[zambuck]

True.....Buddhists actually won on many fronts.....It is practiced right across China and Japan...and that tells a lot....Huan Tsang was sent by then the King of China to study and learn about Buddhism....

Gandi's whole religion of Non Violence sprouted from his readings of Ashoka and Buddhism...Indian Flag has circle in middle which is called Ashok Chakra....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great


Hiduism did not 'wipe' out Buddhism, as there is no 'Hinduiem' it is merely gathering of various religions that goes under the name of Hinduism...

 

[dcraig1]

Is non violence relevant today? In fact has it ever been relevant ever? Gandhi was a champion of non violence, but then did he really gain independence for India through his non violent methods? I doubt that!

Hitler > Could he have been transformed with Love - I doubt that! So Had Military action against Germany not taken place, then the world would be a different map today.

Would Gandhi have survived, if his enemy was Hitler and not the British? I doubt it
Hitler would have exterminated him, just as he had killed millions. with Gandhi dead,
the non violence end!

Buddha talks a lot non violence, The Hindus virtually wiped out Buddhism out of India, a fact very few people know! > did non violence achieve anything for Buddhism? just as the Islamic invaders wiped out Hinduism and Buddhism from the present day Afghanistan and Pakistan. So yet again shows, that violence did win in the end.

Americans eliminated Saddaam - did he have WMD? The only weapon he had was to dump the dollar, and if successful, then that was end of America. So yet again Violence was a winner, it was through violent means that Iraq was conquered!

History shows that the strong wins, the one who uses force wins > so i am often comfronted with the fact that does Love has no purpose.? when violence wins!

The fact that Britain was exhausted by WWII may have a lot to do with Ghandi's success. Whether Britain would have given up the jewel of empire without a long and bloody fight in the absence of WWII is an open question.

 

[Splitlink]

In time, we would have. As we did with everything else. These are all sovereign states, for heaven's sake. We all, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Germans, Japanese and US included, had a bloody cheek, when you come to think of it. But all this was done because of industrial power. Love of fellow man does not enter into it, except in isolated, individual, cases. You are right about Ghandi. A good guy but he was used by fellow countrymen to obtain independence.

It all comes down to "Don Dinero".

 

[zambuck]

A good guy but he was used by fellow countrymen to obtain independence.

It all comes down to "Don Dinero".

...A very sweeping statement not based on the actual...!...More research is essential to know as to what exactly happened....

...Attenborough's film did not capture tenth of the issue that is Gandhi...!

 

[shadowninja]

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Hitler&word2=Gandhi

 

[zambuck]

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Hitler&word2=Gandhi

So far Gandhi losing....So get ready for Hitler's reign from now on...!

 

[bhavin]

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The point of the Buddhism peace is that it's wrong to be violent, nobody can say whether A or B has a right to live because nobody atually knows. So saying "If the Buddhists had fought back against the Muslims in Pakistan a few hundered years ago they would have won" is complete nonsense. The fact they didn't fight shows that they won, because they were right all along. Surely if they keep like this and people follow, there wouldn't be any need to fight in the first place?

Hmmm... I disagreee.
Had they fought in self defence, then today Afghanistan would have been a Buddhist country and there would be no sign of Taliban.

remember what Obama said that the nobel prize? He said that even if Hitler was offered peace he would have retaliated with violence.

What good is winning when you culture was destroyed.

The Bamiyan, one of the last Buddhist heritage was destroyed by the f***ing Taliban

 

[bhavin]

The fact that Britain was exhausted by WWII may have a lot to do with Ghandi's success. Whether Britain would have given up the jewel of empire without a long and bloody fight in the absence of WWII is an open question.

Totally agree............ There is no way Britain would have agreed to Independence without a fight...... They were exhausted plus banrupt > so gandhi took the credit

had it not been for the stupid policies of Ghandhi and Nehru, India would have been a more prosperous country

 

[bhavin]

You are right about Ghandi. A good guy but he was used by fellow countrymen to obtain independence. It all comes down to "Don Dinero".

Other Indians wanted violence to kick out the Brits, they even wanted to side with Nazi and Japs, I am afraid, non violence does not work...... It creates a nation of weaklings.

look at India > it is a weak Nation. A tiny country like Pakistan and Bangladeshis pi** over Indians all the time.

Look at the terror activities of Pakistan > Parliament attach, Akshardham massacre, Kargil, Killing all the Hindus in Kashmir, and last year the Mumbai massacre

NOT once have the Indians retaliated!

Cowards >

 

[Splitlink]

I like the iIndians but I agree with you. I read in a book, years ago, that a politician or general said that India was like a beautiful woman waiting to be raped.

 

[Marwan2010]

I like the iIndians but I agree with you. I read in a book, years ago, that a politician or general said that India was like a beautiful woman waiting to be raped.

It sure is a beautiful woman, which is continually being raped............ and raped............ and raped...................

Never does it retaliate!

Guess it is non violence at work!

 

[Marwan2010]

Prepared to die > But not prepared to KILL ( not even in self defence!)
What good are you when you are dead!

 

[HawkTrader]

Hmmm... I disagreee.
Had they fought in self defence, then today Afghanistan would have been a Buddhist country and there would be no sign of Taliban.

remember what Obama said that the nobel prize? He said that even if Hitler was offered peace he would have retaliated with violence.

What good is winning when you culture was destroyed.

The Bamiyan, one of the last Buddhist heritage was destroyed by the f***ing Taliban

Guess it is non violence at work!

Isn't this exactly the reason we monkeys bother to make massive toys (weapons) to kill each other anyway?

 

[Marwan2010]

Isn't this exactly the reason we monkeys bother to make massive toys (weapons) to kill each other anyway?
/QUOTE]

Absolutely beautiful.......................
indeed we are a bunch of monkeys...

 

[allisa]

True.....Buddhists actually won on many fronts.....It is practiced right across China and Japan...and that tells a lot....Huan Tsang was sent by then the King of China to study and learn about Buddhism....

Gandi's whole religion of Non Violence sprouted from his readings of Ashoka and Buddhism...Indian Flag has circle in middle which is called Ashok Chakra....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great


Hiduism did not 'wipe' out Buddhism, as there is no 'Hinduiem' it is merely gathering of various religions that goes under the name of Hinduism...

You are right and i am very much concern with your point of view. Love and non violence can win.