NEW DELHI — An Indian publisher came under fire this week for including Hitler in a children’s book about world leaders who have “devoted their lives for the betterment of their country and people.”

“Dedicated to the betterment of countries and people? Adolf Hitler? This description would bring tears of joy to the Nazis and their racist neo-Nazi heirs,” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization, said in a statement.

Published by the Pegasus imprint of India’s B. Jain Publishing Group, the book, called “Leaders” — but listed on the publisher’s website as “Great Leaders” — spotlights 11 leaders “who will inspire you,” according to a product description on the publisher’s website.

On the book’s cover, a stony-faced Hitler is featured alongside Barack Obama, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi. Also included on the cover is Myanmar’s civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has recently come under sharp criticism for refusing to acknowledge atrocities committed by the country’s military against the Rohingya ethnic group.

Earlier this week, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which is based in Los Angeles, called for the publisher to remove “Great Leaders” from circulation and its online store, where it is sold for about $2.

Continue reading the main story

“Placing Hitler alongside truly great political and humanitarian leaders is an abomination that is made worse as it targets young people with little or no knowledge of world history and ethics,” Rabbi Cooper said in the statement.

Annshu Juneja, a publishing manager at the imprint, said by email that Hitler was featured because, like Barack Obama, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, “his leadership skills and speeches influenced masses.”

“We are not talking about his way of conduct or his views or whether he was a good leader or a bad leader but simply portraying how powerful he was as a leader,” he said.

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story

The Interpreter Newsletter

Understand the world with sharp insight and commentary on the major news stories of the week.

The publisher had not previously received any complaints about the book, the email said, including from the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

In parts of Asia, atrocities committed in Nazi Germany are poorly understood and Hitler is sometimes glorified as a strong, effective leader.

In 2004, reports surfaced of high-school textbooks in the state of Gujarat, which was then led by Mr. Modi, that spoke glowingly of Nazism and fascism.

According to The Times of India, in a section called “Ideology of Nazism,” the textbook said Hitler had “lent dignity and prestige to the German government,” “made untiring efforts to make Germany self-reliant” and “instilled the spirit of adventure in the common people.” Only briefly does the book mention the extermination of millions of Jews and others by the end of World War II.

Dilip D’Souza, an Indian journalist, wrote in a 2012 editorial that when 25 mostly upper-middle-class students taught by his wife at a private French school in Mumbai were asked to name the historical figure they most admired, nine of them picked Hitler.

“ ‘And what about the millions he murdered?’ asked my wife. ‘Oh, yes, that was bad,’ said the kids. ‘But you know what, some of them were traitors.’ ”

The statement from the Simon Wiesenthal Center said that “Great Leaders” had been sold this month at the Krithi International Book Fair in Kochi, a city with a long Jewish heritage. The 48-page book was originally published in 2016, according to the publisher’s website, and it was still available for sale online on Saturday. It is unclear who wrote it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922508&forum_id=2#35634926)

Jews of course making everything about themselves.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922508&forum_id=2#35635483)

"25 mostly upper-middle-class students . . . at a private French school in Mumbai were asked to name the historical figure they most admired, nine of them picked Hitler.

“ ‘And what about the millions he murdered?’ . . . ‘Oh, yes, that was bad,’ said the kids. ‘But you know what, some of them were traitors.’ ”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922508&forum_id=2#35635499)

did they think his plan was to use his political office to start the hitler foundation and collect money at davos or something?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922508&forum_id=2#35637263)

Remove Hitler from history, USSR modernizes, attacks Europe in 1943, captures German scientists, develops nukes first, nukes USA. Would you like that?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922508&forum_id=2#35640138)

or, if we do erase hitler from history, don't you think it's at least likely that another dictator would have arisen in his place? weimar germany was a chaotic place and there was a lot of desire for someone who would restore germany's glory. it might have been a more pragmatic / less megalomaniacal sort of person who rose to the top (e.g. a franco-type figure).

an indigenous germany commie takeover would be terrible though.

b) no evidence that stalin was seriously planning an attack in the near future. he had just liquidated all of the best officers because he was paranoid that the army might conspire against him. the best units and tank divisions were out east in siberia. there was no significant arms buildup. soviet military was in absolutely no condition to wage a defensive war, let alone an offensive one (see: terrible performance in finland, initial stages of barbarossa).

c) a germany that didn't have millions of men tied down occupying everything from norway to greece would have much more resources to marshal against a soviet invasion.

d) western elites were terrified of communism, while their opinions of fascism ranged from friendly to indifferent to mildly worried. in the event of a USSR attacq, other countries would be very likely to fight alongside germany to push back against the communist menace. USSR alone vs western europe coalition could not possibly win. commies certainly would have had a much harder time of it without american lend-lease.

i understand butterfly effects, contingency of history, etc. but ljl at using it to defend meth-addict dictator who killed millions of innocents and destroyed germany as a nation. i also notice that this style of argumentation ONLY gets used in the context of hitler. people have no trouble imagining scenarios like "what if Bush didn't invade Iraq?", "what if Churchill surrended in 1940?", "what if Cromwell had accepted the crown?", etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922508&forum_id=2#35644110)

-- Ok, but you could argue that at some point the alternative history decisions would be so alien to the beliefs, personality or logic of the person in question that he could not have possibly made them. Otherwise you are indeed replacing the historical person with someone else.

>hitler could have built up germany's armed forces to an appreciable level, and then just not waged a war of aggression against the whole world, had he chosen to. that's easy -- all he had to do was nothing. he could have also chosen not to try to kill all the jews, that'd be pretty easy too.

-- You don't understand what moved Hitler and Germany Hitler was not a regular politician or bureaucrat, who builds the armed forces and then works for the department of agriculture. Whatever was done was done for one purpose - unification of all Germans in one German state. The annexation of Austria is unavoidable, same with the German speaking regions of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain believes it's a bit extreme, but still rational policy.

>or, if we do erase hitler from history, don't you think it's at least likely that another dictator would have arisen in his place? weimar germany was a chaotic place and there was a lot of desire for someone who would restore germany's glory. it might have been a more pragmatic / less megalomaniacal sort of person who rose to he top (e.g. a franco-type figure).

-- It's hard to say, but probably a similar figure would emerge, Hitler was the personification of German attitudes, not the imposer of his own will on the reluctant people.

>an indigenous germany commie takeover would be terrible though

-- Definitely, and dealing with the commies benefited from, possibly even required the unapologetic, uncompromising fanaticism of Hitler. But then you propose he does not invade Poland, where "the German minority yearns to reunite with the Fatherland". It's a package, items are not for individual sale.

>b) no evidence that stalin was seriously planning an >attack in the near future. he had just liquidated all of >the best officers because he was paranoid that the army >might conspire against him. the best units and tank >divisions were out east in siberia. there was no >significant arms buildup. soviet military was in >absolutely no condition to wage a defensive war, let alone >an offensive one (see: terrible performance in finland, >initial stages of barbarossa).

Not in the near future, but eventually. After the revolution Russia continually fights aggressive, land grabbing wars. The Winter war was a disaster, but it again showed very clearly what was Russian intent. It was the cornerstone of commie ideology that revolution must expand worldwide. In 1945, disappointed Stalin ranted to Churchill about his failure to take Paris. What did the French do to him? USSR just wanted to expand, that's all. By about 1943 Russia would have rearmed and pushed West, Hitler or no Hitler. And so if the war with Russia was unavoidable, Hitler made the only correct and rational decision that is to attack as soon as possible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922508&forum_id=2#35645739)