What are similarities between M K Gandhi and Adolf Hitler?
• Gandhi and Hitler are two men who changed the history of the world. Both men of strong character in their own right.• Two men who draw passion among people, love or hatred, very strong indeed.• Both loved their people. Gandhi fought against the British to ensure that his people were free, whereas Hitler fought against some "suspected" forces which were out to disintegrate his people..• Both were very charismatically hypnotic when it came to casting spells on people with their speeches, inspiring them and getting them to follow them. They were very stubborn and determined and no power could make them change their minds when set. They believed in their cause and the confidence they exuded was phenomenal. • Hitler and Gandhi both gained respect of their people in very short period of time!
Was the image of the Jewish community in pre-war Germany and rest of Europe somewhat akin to Israel's projected image today of a country's battling for survival in a sea of hostility?
When you say pre war Germany I am going to imply pre Nazi Germany.Some Jews had gained prominence in the professions and academia and some had become prosperous merchants and industrialists. There was no hostility towards them until the effects of hyperinflation, the Great Depression and unemployment combined with the scapegoating by the Nazis falsely blaming the Jews for these ills and magically being responsible for the treaty of Versailles and the loss of the First World War and even responsible for the rise of communism. All of course bullshit. But no prior to this scourge Jews lived free and enlightened lives and there were some amazing synagogues in Berlin and other cities in Germany. The prosecution of the Jews was total bullshit perpetrated by evil gangsters thrives and barbarians.
What does it say about history that Hitler, Stalin and the Ayatullah Khomeini have all been voted Times Person of the year?
It tells you that the Western media will praise or demonise particular individuals according to their perceived usefulness to the West, not their inherent qualities. In 1938, Hitler was seen as useful against the threat of Communism. (And he and Chamberlain nearly won the Nobel Peace Prize for the Munich Agreement.) By 1942, the USA was at war with Hitler, who had foolishly declared war on them after Pearl Harbour. Two-thirds of the German Army was on the Eastern Front right down to the end of the war. The West could not have won the war in Europe without the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union would not have survived the ultimate challenge of invasion without Stalin's ruthless industrialisation in the 1930s. In 1979, it seemed entirely possible that the left would win out in Iran. That would have justified a milder attitude to Khomeini. I notice also that your source includes Khrushchev for 1957. The year of Sputnik, the opening of the Space Race. But also Khrushchev had denounced Stalin back in 1956, which turned out to be fatal for the Soviet Union and very useful for the West. You might also consider what sort of world we'd be living in, if World War Two had ended with the Soviet Union conquered and an uneasy compromise between Hitler and the Anglosphere. Many people in Britain and the USA were much closer to Hitler's way of thinking than is now admitted. The USA was still racially segregated and there was considerable hostility to Jews.
What do you think Hindenburg would have said to Hitler if he reappeared in his bunker in 1945?
I know little if anything about Hindenburg’s religious beliefs ( or lack there of ) but from a humanitarian standpoint I am sure he regretted Hitler’s rise to power. Especially since he played a role in it by appointing Hitler Vice Chancellor likely against his better judgment. If this move was meant to appease Hitler and his supporters it backfired. Hitler’s Messiah complex only got Added fuel once this happened. It reinforced his belief that his ultimate destiny was fast approaching and emboldened Hitler’s supporters into becoming even more aggressive in support of their Champion. The power we want is not only in sight now but but in arms length !As to what Hindenburg would have said I can only speculate but it is likely he would have professed his profound regret for appointing him. Second also likely would have chastised Hitler for bringing such profound misery on the German people. And he likely would have asked him ( again speculation ) Herr Hitler was it worth it ? Was it worth it ? This stain on your legacy will remain long after your death and even the family name Hitler will be looked upon with disapproval if not down right hatred.
What would the world be like if Hitler had succeeded in eradicating the Jewish race?
The world would be a less rich and beautiful place.Yes, many of the inventions might have been invented by others. But they might not have.But so much beautiful music and art and literature would have never been written.Jenji Kohan would have never taught us Orange is the New Black.Carrie Fisher would have never been Princess Leia.Barbara Streisand would have never taught us about the Way We Were.Neil Gaiman would have never introduced us to the Sandman.Steven Spielberg would have never made us afraid of the water in Jaws or taught us the beauty of friendship in ET.The Marvel and DC Universe would not exist. Jack Kirby and Stan Lee and Bob Kane would have never existed.Iron Man would have never existed without Robert Downey Jr (half Jewish), Gwyneth Paltrow (half Jewish) and the director, Jon Faverau (Jewish)Simon and Garfunkel would have never taught us the sound of silence.Bob Dylan would have never taught us that answers are blowing in the wind.Akiva Goldsman would have never told us of a beautiful mind.And I can keep going.What a poor world that would be.I’m glad for the people who realized what a painful answer this is.I am writing now from my niece and nephew’s side. They are sleeping so peacefully. They have no idea that their existence is something that can be debated. And I hope I can shield them for a bit longer.
Why did the League of Nations fail?
The League of Nations was the first intergovernment organisation that was established after World War 1 in order to try and maintain the peace. Unfortunately the League failed miserably in its intended goal: to prevent another world war from happening (WW2 broke out only two decades later). The idea was for the League of Nations to prevent wars through disarmament, collective security and negotiation. It was also involved in other issues such as drug trafficking, arms trade and global health. Although the League disbanded during WW2, it was replaced with the United Nations, which is still going strong today.The League of Nations had several integral weaknesses that finally led to its demise.The League was supposed to present the world and encompass all countries, but many countries never even joined the organization, of which the U.S. was the most prevalent one. Some members only remained members for a short while, before ending their membership. Many historians believe that if America had joined the League, there would have been a lot more support in preventing conflicts. Other major powers such as Germany and the Soviet Union were not allowed to join.The international relations of member countries conflicted with the League’s requirements for collective security.The League didn’t have its own armed forces and depended on members to act, but none of the member countries were ready for another war and didn’t want to provide military support.Pacifism was a great problem: the Leagues two largest members, Britain and France, were very reluctant to resort in sanctions and military actions.Disarmament was highly advocated by the League, which meant that it deprived countries that were supposed to act with military force on its behalf when necessary from means to do so.When countries started to attack others in order to try and expand, the League didn’t have any power to stop them.