This is a philosophy question; please help.

Answer in your own words please. no plagiarism

Gandhi argued that Satyagraha, a non-violent confrontation with the opponent, was always the right solution. In his book on Gandhi, Bikhu Parekh argues that this was a mistake in Gandhi's theory Hayim Greenberg, editor of The Jewish Frontier and an admirer of Gandhi, wrote to him, 'a Jewish Gandhi in Germany, should one arise,could function for about five minutes and would be promptly taken to the guillotine'. Gandhi replied that Hitler too was a human being, that the Jews, who were going to be slaughtered anyway, should have asserted their dignity and freely chosen their way of death, and that such an action was bound to have an effect on ordinary Germans, if not immediately at least a little later (lxviii. 13741). His reply had a point, but it rested on an uncritical faith in the power of non-violence, and showed little understanding of the complex ways in which totalitarian systems brutalized the community, demoralized the victims, distorted public discourse, and undermined the basic preconditions of satyagraha. (Bikhu Parekh, Gandhi, A short Introduction, p.75) What are your thoughts on this question? Is satyagraha always the right solution, as Gandhi maintained