I don't think non violence would have worked against the Nazis. WIth the British, a certain morality slanted victory towards the Indians. The Nazis had none.

This is an example of what I see as Gandhi's absurdity - it is him starting to believe his own hype. If we really analyze how Indian liberation iself came to be achieved, I think a very clear case can be made that Gandhi was not a critical part of that achievement. He was a great "PR man" for the movement, and he almost certainly smoothed the transition and reduced the amount of bloodshed to achieve it. But Indian liberation was inevitable, and probably not significantly impacted by Gandhi's involvement. Unrest and a desire for liberation were common throughout India, and some of it was violent resistance. After WWII, the British military was severely limited in its capability to defend a far flung and massive colonial holding like India, and neither would its allies be capable of assisting it, since they too had been devastated by the war. The British public were also tired of fighting, and unwilling to engage in yet another conflict. Indian independence would have been granted sooner rather than later, perhaps even on the same timescale that it was achieved with Gandhi's leadership, had he not been involved. It should be noted that Gandhi offered similar advice to the Jews in their struggle vs. the Nazis. That, also, would never have worked. Perhaps a few Nazis might have laughed themselves to death at the thought of it, but that's about it. Non-violence doesn't actually solve anything. If it did, then we would be angels, and then there wouldn't be a need for non-violent resistance. We try to revise history to make humanity feel better about itself, but in the end, violence is what molds history, not pacifism. Ironically, Gandhi's single most powerful moment was in violence - his assassination.

Actually it WOULD work today, but only in an appropriate context: the regime being resisted must be substantially susceptible to moral pressure (either from its own people, or in the form of international condemnation). The British Empire was vulnerable both at home and abroad to threats to its moral authority; its power was predicated on a claim to be offering civilized 'protection' of the governed. If, on the other hand, the source of a a government's authority is invulnerable to moral pressure, non-violent movements cannot hope to influence its behavior. Consider the former Soviet regime: it relied on fear, rather than any sort of moral authority to keep itself in power -- and was self sufficient enough economically to sustain its position without foreign complicity. So, certainly, non-violent resistance against the Kremlin would have been pointless? As the world becomes more and more interconnected economically, the potential for international pressure to be decisive is enhanced, and thus non-violent resistance should have a greater and greater potential to effect change in the future. - Lauren D.