Is Hitler loved in India ?

[hhunaeh]

Hitler fought and lost his war wrecking europe and his own country(i mean, what good leader leads millions of his own people to death and allows them to be enslaved by foreigners) in the process, allowing us to take advantage of the situation. If he had won his wars, his treatment of the impure blood romani people/gypsies should tell us what we had coming. And god bless gandhi. He did what was necessary to rid us of the british. The fool hitler ruined his country, ruined his continent, killed millions, and on the other hand gandhi lead us to freedom without any major wars and without us having to butcher any of our neighbouring countries.

Approximately 250,000 to 500,000 Gypsies were murdered during the Holocaust

The Romani (also spelled Romany), or Roma, are an ethnicity of Indian origin, living mostly in Europe and the Americas.[24][25] Romani are widely known among Anglophonic people by the exonym "Gypsies" (or Gipsies). Romani are widely dispersed, with their largest concentrated populations in Europe—especially Central and Eastern Europe and Anatolia, Iberia, and Southern France. They originated in India and arrived in Mid-West Asia, then Europe, at least 1,000 years ago,[26] either separating from the Dom people or, at least, having a similar history;[27] the ancestors of both the Romani and the Dom left North India sometime between the sixth and eleventh century.[26]

[CSK Fan]

For those who think I was being sarcastic the answer is No. He is the reason we got independence and thats not the only reason I like him. He wasn't as bad as he has been made out to be. Yes' date=' he killed many people which is wrong, no one in the world could agree with him for that.[/quote'] He didn't kill many people. He killed millions. Absolute genocide. He is the reason we got independence? That is some twisted way of thinking to justify your like for a genocidal maniac He wasn't as bad as he was made out to be? Why?

[FischerTal]

Again nobody is praising hitler for his actions. People just cannot digest the fact that freedom cannot be won by going on dharnas. Gandhi would have kept doing satyagrahas till the end of his life and it wouldn't have mattered to the British empire.

[CSK Fan]

Doesn't matter. Me you + all our family members are free because of him indirectly or directly.

What doesn't matter? You have said the complete opposite of what he said without an iota of proof and argument and why couldn't Gandhi have gotten freedom? When an entire country as large as India rises in revolt, not even the most powerful army in the world can subjugate them. There is a huge difference between conquering a country and keeping them subjugated. It is just not worth the time and money. They had already sucked us dry, what else what the point of remaining in India? British did commit multiple atrocities. No one is defending that. However targeting just one community and eradicating them is amongst the evilest thing ever done. And if he had succeeded , Indians, being non-pure, would have been on the next hit list for sure.

[CSK Fan]

Again nobody is praising hitler for his actions. People just cannot digest the fact that freedom cannot be won by going on dharnas. Gandhi would have kept doing satyagrahas till the end of his life and it wouldn't have mattered to the British empire.

And you are completely ignoring the fact that you cannot keep a country conquered in the modern age. Do you know the cost of keeping soldiers for ever? Not even the US with 10 times as much money can do it in a small country like Afghanistan. When the returns become less than the investment, then you will be forced to let go and with wild spread non-corperation and stayagrahs, that is exactly what happened. Production dipped and the cost of keeping all these soldiers were humongous. There is no way British could afford or sustain this for long You are again saying some random things without logic

[FischerTal]

What doesn't matter? You have said the complete opposite of what he said without an iota of proof and argument and why couldn't Gandhi have gotten freedom? When an entire country as large as India rises in revolt, not even the most powerful army in the world can subjugate them. There is a huge difference between conquering a country and keeping them subjugated. It is just not worth the time and money. They had already sucked us dry, what else what the point of remaining in India? British did commit multiple atrocities. No one is defending that. However targeting just one community and eradicating them is amongst the evilest thing ever done. And if he had succeeded , Indians, being non-pure, would have been on the next hit list for sure.

I said it doesn't matter that our freedom was an indirect result of world war 2. If world war 2 hadn't happened, independence in 1947 would have been a pipe dream. Heck independence itself was a pipedream Yes we saw gandhis great struggle over the course of his entire life. What did we get? Ghanta. All that happened is a bunch of people protest then Gandhi goes to talk with the British and status quo maintained. I put people like Bhagat Singh raj guru sukhdev Chandrashekhar azad shaheed udham Singh ashfaqullah khan on a higher pedestal than Gandhi. Atleast they tried to do something positive for their country unlike Gandhi who was just concerned about becoming a mahatma

[CSK Fan]

Because he was a man of ethical courage' date=' a man of spiritual perception and good intent. He had great leadership skills and was an able administrator.[/quote'] By all accounts these things are completely false and propaganda A man of ethical courage does not go on a vendetta against an entire race. He does not kill innocent women and children A man of spiritual perception knows the value of human lives and does not live like an animal He made some horrendous, horrendous decisions as a leader. In fact most of his success was accidental where he rose to power in a vacuum. During the world war, most of the defeats Germany faced was a direct result of his over-confidence and poor decisions Everything you have said has been proven false a 100 times over. I don't know what literature you have read or where but better stick to maths

[FischerTal]

And you are completely ignoring the fact that you cannot keep a country conquered in the modern age. Do you know the cost of keeping soldiers for ever? Not even the US with 10 times as much money can do it in a small country like Afghanistan. When the returns become less than the investment, then you will be forced to let go and with wild spread non-corperation and stayagrahs, that is exactly what happened. Production dipped and the cost of keeping all these soldiers were humongous. There is no way British could afford or sustain this for long You are again saying some random things without logic

You are ignoring the fact that British were already in India for a long time even before Gandhi arrived. Do you think they didn't factor in cost of soldiers during their 200 years of rule on our country? Again you keep harping on the fact that one day the British would leave when India was no longer profitable. If I was an Indian living in that time period, would I be counting down the clock as to when the British felt they had looted my homeland enough and then I would become free? No , unlike some people, I would rather fight for my freedom than stay subjugated even one day under British control.

[CG]

One thing i agree British were as bad if not worse than hitler.We might as well thank usa,japan,russia for indias freedom.

[CSK Fan]

I said it doesn't matter that our freedom was an indirect result of world war 2. If world war 2 hadn't happened, independence in 1947 would have been a pipe dream. Heck independence itself was a pipedream Yes we saw gandhis great struggle over the course of his entire life. What did we get? Ghanta. All that happened is a bunch of people protest then Gandhi goes to talk with the British and status quo maintained. I put people like Bhagat Singh raj guru sukhdev Chandrashekhar azad shaheed udham Singh ashfaqullah khan on a higher pedestal than Gandhi. Atleast they tried to do something positive for their country unlike Gandhi who was just concerned about becoming a mahatma

Again completely false you believe talks and satyagrahs are passive acts because you have raised up on a culture of hollywood violence and herogiri and do not have the brain to think before that Every terrorist in the world today, even the Islamic terrorist you abhor so much use the culture of violence which Bhagat Singh etc used. Did it succeed? Are they winning? Or is the cycle of violence just going on there is a reason Gandhi's methods are admired so much and used successfully by people like Mandela who were directly inspired by him Each and every action he took was extremely calculated. It hit the British where it hurt them the most, their wallet. Every non-coperation movement, every satyhagrah had millions of people affecting British economy directly. There is no way the British would have sustained being in India without Bhagat Singh's methods would have just hurt British pride and brought in more troops. Gandhi's method made the whole thing untenable for them and when money began draining out, questions had to be answered back home. World war or no world war, there was now way and no reason for British to continue being in India

[Sachin=GOD]

One thing i agree British were as bad if not worse than hitler.We might as well thank usa' date='japan,russia for indias freedom.[/quote'] Nope. You cannot compare anyone with Hitler.

[hhunaeh]

You are ignoring the fact that British were already in India for a long time even before Gandhi arrived. Do you think they didn't factor in cost of soldiers during their 200 years of rule on our country? Again you keep harping on the fact that one day the British would leave when India was no longer profitable. If I was an Indian living in that time period, would I be counting down the clock as to when the British felt they had looted my homeland enough and then I would become free? No , unlike some people, I would rather fight for my freedom than stay subjugated even one day under British control.

When did we truly come together as a nation and present a united opposition to the british and because of whom did this unity come about?

[CSK Fan]

You are ignoring the fact that British were already in India for a long time even before Gandhi arrived. Do you think they didn't factor in cost of soldiers during their 200 years of rule on our country? Again you keep harping on the fact that one day the British would leave when India was no longer profitable. If I was an Indian living in that time period, would I be counting down the clock as to when the British felt they had looted my homeland enough and then I would become free? No , unlike some people, I would rather fight for my freedom than stay subjugated even one day under British control.

1) In 200 years of rule there was no one like Gandhi, someone who could make millions revolt against British and stop them from working. In 200 years British continued to make profit because the common people continued working for them. While warriors fought against them, the common people worked hard and made profit. Gandhi was able to bring these common people in the fight for freedom. One dandi March did more harm to British than a thousand bomb blasts could have done 2) Your example of fighting against British was tried a 1000 times in those 200 years. From Indian mutiny to Bhagat Singh everyone tried. It did not work and there is a reason. British was much more powerful in their might and when you attack them, it becomes a matter of national pride and prestige and they could send in troops any time. Indians had no way of over throwing them by force On the other hand, when you bleed them dry economically, when even common people come on streets and stop working for the British, they could not do a thing.

[CG]

Nope. You cannot compare anyone with Hitler.

Nope british empire over along period did more damage and affected more lives than hitler.

[FischerTal]

Again completely false you believe talks and satyagrahs are passive acts because you have raised up on a culture of hollywood violence and herogiri and do not have the brain to think before that Every terrorist in the world today, even the Islamic terrorist you abhor so much use the culture of violence which Bhagat Singh etc used. Did it succeed? Are they winning? Or is the cycle of violence just going on there is a reason Gandhi's methods are admired so much and used successfully by people like Mandela who were directly inspired by him Each and every action he took was extremely calculated. It hit the British where it hurt them the most, their wallet. Every non-coperation movement, every satyhagrah had millions of people affecting British economy directly. There is no way the British would have sustained being in India without Bhagat Singh's methods would have just hurt British pride and brought in more troops. Gandhi's method made the whole thing untenable for them and when money began draining out, questions had to be answered back home. World war or no world war, there was now way and no reason for British to continue being in India

It's you who is living in a Hollywood movie not myself. Do you not remember the jalianwala bagh massacre? Peaceful protesters protesting. Do the British give a crap? No innocent men and women killed for no reason. Bhagat singhs methods were used by the Vietnamese against the Americans. You think the Vietnamese would have gone on satyagrahas to defend their homeland? The Vietnamese were united in their resolve to defeat the worlds superpower and they did it. If they had waited for a gandhi an figure, then Vietnam today would have been a much different place

[FischerTal]

1) In 200 years of rule there was no one like Gandhi, someone who could make millions revolt against British and stop them from working. In 200 years British continued to make profit because the common people continued working for them. While warriors fought against them, the common people worked hard and made profit. Gandhi was able to bring these common people in the fight for freedom. One dandi March did more harm to British than a thousand bomb blasts could have done 2) Your example of fighting against British was tried a 1000 times in those 200 years. From Indian mutiny to Bhagat Singh everyone tried. It did not work and there is a reason. British was much more powerful in their might and when you attack them, it becomes a matter of national pride and prestige and they could send in troops any time. Indians had no way of over throwing them by force On the other hand, when you bleed them dry economically, when even common people come on streets and stop working for the British, they could not do a thing.

Even in the 1857 mutiny, British relied on mostly Indian soldiers and fighters from 21 princely states to do the dirty work for them. If the Indians at that time had any sense of unity, then they would have all been able to rise together and finish off the British at that moment itself. So to say violent methods were ineffective is not correct. If you have the manpower and required firepower, even a superpower like America can be taken down, as was shown by the Vietnamese

[Mariyam]

For those who think I was being sarcastic the answer is No. He is the reason we got independence and thats not the only reason I like him. He wasn't as bad as he has been made out to be. Yes' date=' he killed many people which is wrong, no one in the world could agree with him for that.[/quote'] jawohl herr gaurav. das ist wunderschon. :hatsoff: hitler ist zvery guuuuuuuut. der actuell vater der Indian Nazion. hitler kaput british empirung.

[Precambrian]

Able administrator - Yes Charismatic leader - Yes Skillful orator - Yes Technocratic and visionary - Yes Decisive - Yes Bold - Yes Those are the qualities in Hitler that I admire. But that is more than compensated by his singular madness with Eugenics. But then, he wasn't the only one advocating Eugenics at that time, Winston Churchill, GB Shaw, JM Keynes, Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt all were ardent fans of Eugenics. Its bit of a forgotten history - one America and westerners want to conveniently hide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States Eugenics were part of state law in US and compulsory sterilizations performed on ethnic groups considered as "inferior" - all with the goal of producing a racially superior society consisting of obviously whites. And there was widespread movements funded by likes of Carnegie and Rockefeller to popularize euthanasia of "inferior" people in the early 1900s. Hitler picked up from these guys and took it to the next level, while post WW2, America and the western powers conveniently rewrote history and suppressed facts to show themselves as "champions" and Hitler "ultra evil", while Hitler was nothing but a student of western Eugenics movement.

[Precambrian]

The world made unbelievable scientific progress during the World Wars and much of it came from Germany. Post WW2, how many scientists/tehnicians were emigrated to US who went on to develop the superpower's backbone as it is now? Besides there is widespread renunciation of the holocaust numbers - Many people believe the holocaust tragedies are over-stated by Allied forces to justify their involvement. About a quarter of million people lost their llives in just 2 days - in mere minutes when US dropped the atom bombs in Japan - and if you take US's body count in foreign insurgence in last 50 years, I am pretty sure it'd put Holocaust to shame.

[BlueBee]

Able administrator - Yes Charismatic leader - Yes Skillful orator - Yes Technocratic and visionary - Yes Decisive - Yes Bold - Yes Those are the qualities in Hitler that I admire.

Even I admire those qualities but only if he'd used his qualities in a good way. He used that for what? Criticise the so called inferior races. A video for you guys to give an idea of how Powerful and Passionate speaker he was. eGhdX1SI3KY&bpctr=1409129625 And one about the Jews. kAIGxru0OzM