Churchill The “Villain”!

Maybe you could post the letter you refer to, as I can only find this one

Letter to Adolf Hitler
As at Wardha,
December 24, 1940
DEAR FRIEND,
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 view 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 non-violent 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 non-violent 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 attended to hearing the dumb millions? I had intended to address a joint appeal to you and Signor Mussolini, whom I had the privilege of meeting when I was in Rome during my visit to England as a delegate to the Round Table Conference. I hope that he will take this as addressed to him also with the necessary changes.
I am,
Your sincere friend,
M. K. GANDHI
Your seriously defending that letter ?
 
I diidn't make any comment as regards the letter contents
Did you see this in my post

"Maybe you could post the letter you refer to, as I can only find this one"
It was the very letter and didn't see why I should explain to helm. Similarly, Gandhi made another quote about hitler being not as bad as our propaganda suggested and he also had some dubious links with the Japanese.

Of course, if the Japanese had gotten into india, they would have regretted it immediately, as the indian national army was not overly well treated by the Japanese or for that matter any turncoats. But, I wouldn't expect helm to know any of that either.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
It was the very letter and didn't see why I should explain to helm. Similarly, Gandhi made another quote about hitler being not as bad as our propaganda suggested and he also had some dubious links with the Japanese.

Of course, if the Japanese had gotten into india, they would have regretted it immediately, as the indian national army was not overly well treated by the Japanese or for that matter any turncoats. But, I wouldn't expect helm to know any of that either.
Why wouldn't I know that? Is it because I've caught you out talking bollocks yet again you assume I'm as thick as you? Keep bashing those buttons though, I'm sure you think it validates your none point.
 
It was the very letter and didn't see why I should explain to helm. Similarly, Gandhi made another quote about hitler being not as bad as our propaganda suggested and he also had some dubious links with the Japanese.

Of course, if the Japanese had gotten into india, they would have regretted it immediately, as the indian national army was not overly well treated by the Japanese or for that matter any turncoats. But, I wouldn't expect helm to know any of that either.
You are side stepping what I asked again you're a idiot
 
Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians who volunteered to serve overseas, were citizen soldiers of their own national dominions and commonwealth soldiers were fighting for Australia, new Zealand and Canada.

A Burmese, Indian, Ghurka, Sri Lankan, Malayan, Freetown Sierra Leonean or hausa were fighting not out of national duty and to think otherwise is a myth.. They may well have joined up for any number of reasons, but none were fighting for their own nations.. That's why numbers of them were willing to change sides.

How many dominion troops changed sides ?? I can think of maybe 10 in the Freikorp and that is about it.
Again with your unsubstantiated and unreferenced nonsense? Despite the very large number of Indian PoWs taken in Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore and Burma, the INA managed to field only three very weak 'brigades' (each roughly the strength of an Indian Army battalion) and huge numbers of those deserted at the first opportunity, having only joined up in order to escape the Japanese PoW cages. On the two occasions where INA troops actually fought as formed units they had their arses handed to them by the colonial 'mercenaries' you so despise - the first time by a combined force of Punjabi Sikhs and Gambians and the second time by Mahrattas.

How many African turncoats or deserters were there out of the 11 brigades of such troops in Burma? None that I can discover.

What proportion of the Indian PoWs as a whole joined the INA and what proportion of those joined out of a desire to fight the British rather than as an escape from death by starvation, torture and overwork?

As for how the locals would react following Japanese invasion - there were numerous effective anti-Japanese resistance groups among the Burmese and Indian border tribes and the Indian Muslim settler population in the Arakan (known as the 'Rohingya') were actively anti-Japanese and provided the Allies with enormous assistance in the form of intelligence and aid to Allied fugitives. The pro-Japanese elements were limited to the Buddhist Burman population.
 
Let me get this right. Because of something that happened before WW1, there are today; certain sections of the Welsh people who continue to hate Churchill?
And people accuse the bloody scousers of being 'grief whores.'
Must be something in the water. It's just a short walk and a paddle across the river after all.
 
At least Owen Jones and his ilk must at last be satisfied that South Africa has been largely wrested from evil white rule, and like Zimbabwe, is moving towards broad sunlit uplands. To coin a phrase.
No look of absolute horror icon. Please use your imagination instead.
 
...Its another of those racist Gammon things to point out African and Indian troops didn't fair as well in the European theatre...
Plenty of SA and Rhodie units fought in the trenches. Delville Wood was a particularly bad one for SA.
 
Plenty of SA and Rhodie units fought in the trenches. Delville Wood was a particularly bad one for SA.
I was referring to native units rather than settlers -

Must admit Im not up on Saffer and Rhodie contributions to WW1 - I had assumed they were kept busy in Africa

In the 2nd innings IIRC South African units were used to Garrison Libya etc after the Invasion of Italy - But didnt fight in Europe - owing to political issues back home.
 
Fought in Italy as I recall. Also El Alamein, Tobruk and so on, not merely garrison.

Grandfather ended up in Stalag VIII IIRC.
 
I will take a nosy at that

There was obviously no slight intended - I was aware South African Units took over Garrison duties at Tobruk etc and there were political issues back home and I appear to have made 1+1 = 6

In my defence the term British Army units used can mean every Empire unit or just British - and googling 6th Armoured brings up a british formation in Italy - (Googling 6th armoured South Africa brings up them). So unless youre really looking its easy to confuse units
 
Also plenty of Saffer and Rhodie pilots flying for the allies during the war in Europe. Sailor Malan one of the BoB aces.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top