Gandhi And Hitler, Together Again Essay, Research Paper

Gandhi, an incredible man, had very unique views on violence and its

power over others. Adolf Hitler, another incredible man albeit for different

reasons, also had individual views on violence.

Gandhi was opposed to violence, as he believed it only solved problems

temporarily and that it led to further violence in the future. Peace was what solved

problems in his mind, not violence. Violent protests that resulted in change never

succeeded fully; those changes were usually revoked or altered. Changes made in

good spirits, under flags of peace, were never removed once put into place. The

most recognized peaceful protest was Gandhi?s Salt March, which involved

thousands of Indian civilians.

Hitler was on the opposite end of the violence spectrum; he felt that killing

those who caused your problems would solve all of those problems, and that

discussion and reasoning were less useful forms of protest. The most vivid

example of violence in order to enact change was the formation of the ghettos for

Jews, to isolate them from the rest of the world.

Gandhi and Hitler also differed on how they believe the economy should be

strengthened. Gandhi proposed a distributed method of production, with everyone

working in regard to themselves but also with their community and their nation as

a whole. Hitler felt that the government should have complete and total control

over the methods of production, and that the people should just do what they are

told to do. Gandhi also felt that replacing workers with technology wasn?t always

beneficial, while Hitler believed that massive industrialization was the key to a

strong economy.

Regarding the wealthy, Gandhi had an interesting perspective. He felt that

the rich for the most part deserved all that wealth that they had. He also felt,

however, that they should feel obligated to use a substantial portion of that wealth

for the betterment of everyone else. Gandhi?s view was, therefore, somewhat

socialist in its roots. Hitler?s view on the rich was unique, because of the situation

of Germany. He felt fine about the wealth being concentrated among rich business

owners and governmental figures, but he did not want the Jews to control any

wealth. This was a problem, because the Jewish population in Germany was large

enough that it bothered Hitler. Therefore, stores were seized from Jews along with

their material possessions.

Both men?s positions on reform were tied closely to their beliefs about

violence. Gandhi felt that social change was only possible if it was made by every

member of society, while Hitler felt that social change was possible as long as the

government enforced the laws regarding the changes. Politically, Gandhi felt that

change could only be achieved by showing the current government the errors of

their ways, and by helping them achieve what was the best for all people. Hitler

thought that violent revolutions were what convinced people of what was right and

wrong.

In my personal opinion, I do not believe I connect with either of these men

on their views of violence. If their beliefs were charted on a scale from one to ten,

Gandhi would be a zero and Hitler would be a ten; two extremes that fit me as

well as an 26*24 pair of jeans. I believe that I fall somewhere in the middle, but

closer to Hitler than Gandhi. For example, I agree with Hitler when he says that to

change a government radically, you must overthrow it radically. Peaceful

protesting can only get you so far; you need to prove to the enemy that you aren?t

all bark and no bite. I do not think violence is ever necessary, however, to control

the population; if your people are that unhappy with the government that they are

openly denouncing it, you should spend your time dealing with the problems in the

government and not spend it dealing with the people yelling at you on the street.

For example, if someone in school is constantly making fun of you and

your friends, I would get my friends together and beat the child up rather than tell

a figure of authority. On the other hand, if I was the class president and people

were unhappy with the way I was running things, I would not threaten them,

instead I would listen to what they thought was wrong and try to change it.

Both Gandhi and Hitler were amazing men in their own ways. One

preached peace, the other aggression. Gandhi was loved by all, and Hitler was

hated by all. To this day, there are racial prejudices against the German people due

to the mistakes made by Hitler. But one final thought ? If our ancestors had not

rebelled against oppressive British rule, where would we all be now?