Apparently, Gandhi claimed that Jews could fight Nazism through civil disobedience.
Here's what I'm wondering: was Gandhi being naive or pragmatic? I think Gandhi was a pretty intelligent person, so I have trouble believing he was naive enough to actually believe that civil disobedience would have worked in that situation. If a Nazi has an assault rifle in a Jew's back, and is marching him off to the gas chamber, it won't matter much if he/she refuses, as s/he'll just be shot instead of gassed. I think Gandhi would have realized this. The other explanation is a bit more cynical. Gandhi may have simply wanted to avoid contradicting the non-violent approach which was working so well in the Indian Nationalist movement. So, rather than undermine what he had worked to build in India, he claimed that the same would work against Nazism.
The reason why non-cooperation worked in India is because the British needed their citizens to cooperate in order to govern them. However, the Nazi's obviously had no need for Jews to cooperate, since they had no qualms about just killing them. Rather than adding a contingency to his non-violent philosophy, simply stating that non-cooperation only works when the political structure one is protesting requires cooperation, and that when violence is directed toward one, self-defense is appropriate, he overapplied his principles to a situation where they clearly couldn't work.
Perhaps it was of little consequence. For one, Gandhi's opinions did not have much of an impact on what was going on outside of India. For another, very few were aware of the full extent of what Nazis were doing to Jews. No special allowances were made in immigration laws. The US didn't have much interest in what was going on until Pearl Harbor, and when they entered the war, it was with the same concern as the rest of the allies--maintaining political sovereignty. Perhaps there simply wasn't enough information available for Gandhi to have an informed opinion on the matter.
I'm curious what others think about this. Was Gandhi just underinformed? Would he have maintained his position if he knew more about what was going on? Was he simply trying to maintain a consistently applicable non-violent philosophy for pragmatic reasons? Was he being overly idealistic? Am I wrong to think that civil disobedience would not have been an effective way for Jews to "fight" Nazism?