Posted on 07/23/2005 10:03:27 PM PDT by minus_273
Human rights campaigners in India's Gujarat state have condemned school textbooks which they say praise Hitler. The books are issued by the Hindu nationalist state government. One includes a chapter on the "internal achievements of Nazism".
A Jesuit priest and social activist, Cedric Prakash, says the books contain more than 300 factual errors and make little mention of the holocaust.
The Gujarat government has dismissed the charges as baseless.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
On another note, I heard his radio is great.
I agree with your overall point, but there were people deliberately starved by Britain. Not as many as Stalin, or there own people, but...
Of course, India played footsie with the soviets throughout
the cold war.
Hitler may well have done some good things for Germany.
His mistake, of course, was starting a war which he couldn't
win.
The volunteers for the British Army vastly outnumbered those for the INA. Their service was extremely brave and very much appreciated. This textbook is spitting on their sacrifice.
Regards, Ivan
watch this thread devolve into a neo nazi hate fest. The last one about indians supporting the nazis had to be locked because of became a a woship thread for Subhas Chandra Bose who was is a indicted war criminal (and the indians hate this)
i smell a paki here.......
we indians have nothing to be ashamed about Subash chandra bose.the british were our overlords who bankrupted the country.our share of world trade dropped from 24 % to less than 1% and untold millions died in famines.even under the muslim rule we didnt strave to death as we did under the british.
dont believe the british propaganda hype i say.
Gee, its too bad the Japs didn't conquer India. Then the Indians could learn what a soft touch the Brits were...
Ya know, Hitler was an evil b@stard, but the Nazis did accomplish some stuff - getting out from under the Versailles Treaty, restoring their economy (somewhat), the Volkswagon, autobahns, to name a few.
Just 'cause they're evil, doesn't mean they're incompetent or unproductive.
Unfortunately.
Correct. I was thinking it was part of India under British rule, but it was not. It was a separate client state under British influence, but separately governed and at least nominally independent.
Indian troops did, however, fight in Burma and North Africa and Italy.
yeah indians fought on both sides in North africa, Europe and South East Asia. Indian troops earned a really bad reputation in France for adopting a scortched earth policy and rapes when they retreated from the allied advance.
But the government was solidly on the allied side, which brings us back to the comment which started the exchange, to the effect that the "country" was on the axis side.
the indian government in exile (frei Hind) was axis and indians fought for the exile govenment( Do you dispute this) The leader of the exile govenment that worked with Hitler is thought of as a hero today(do you dispute this). This leader had socialist/authorotarian views of govenment (do yo dispute this? ). Thats all i am saying. Let me know what points you disagree on and we can continue this discussion. It is entirely possible we agree on everything.
Yes, I'll dispute that there was a 'government in exile'. I won't dispute that there were malcontents who saw a path to power through the Axis. Even Britain had Oswald Moseley, or more directly on point, Unity Mitford. But you can't call Unity Mitford a British government in exile.
The fact that those malcontents are now held in high regard by some (or many) is no surprise. But it doesn't change what they were, and were not, at the time.
And to save some discussion down the road, I would consider the Dutch and Polish governments in exile to be legitimate, while DeGaulle's legitimacy, while expedient, was questionable.
No, DeGaulle fought in Northern France (he led one of the few temporarily successful counterattacks against the German invasion.) He flew to London June 18, 1940, and his government in exile was there. French North Africa was Vichy until Operation Torch. The commanders there were Darlan and Giraud. Despite his resistance, I think it was Darlan who was slated to head up the government, but he was assassinated.
can it not be argued that at the very least it was a civil war of sorts
The facts described would not fall within my definition of a civil war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.