You mean that the British should have surrendered to the Nazis and done what. Lie on railroad tracks or starve. The Nazis would have been delighted to ride over them, and delighted to watch them starve. You must be kidding. Those are the Nazis we are talking about. Remember?
You have nicely deflected your positions from 'Only King fought the law' to Gandhi's remarks on Jews, to Gandhi's suggestion to British.
Moreover, there was some talk about stupidity on not knowing the consequences of ones action.
Anyway, let me try and address the issue by narrowing the scope of this discussion to what 'should' be done when it is between a moral right and a legal wrong. I would take the example of Gandhi, and since several questions has now being queried on the fallout of Gandhi's position.
Gandhi was a visionary, a thinker, a philosopher, a spiritualist, a religionist, a theist, a reformist, a political leader, a social activist, an environmentalist, a peacemaker, an experimenter, a founder of a philosophy, a pacifist etc and apart from being a lawyer as a profession.
He had adorned different role's. To view Gandhi from any one angle would lead to faulty inferences. Many call him the Apostle os Non-violence, but at the same time, conservationist in England called him an anarchist, a reactionary, a trouble maker, a naked fakir........typical of (then) British arrogance and hypocracy.
But the most relevent portion of his personality viz the topic we have in hand, is that he was a moral preacher. He believed that no man can be deprived of his honour and dignity just because the man is deprived of certain qualities, status, privileges etc or by his gender, ethinicty, colour, caste or creed. His goal was to acheive freedom not just political freedom but freedom from all superstitions, dogmas, ignorance and fear.
He would say that there is no use of political freedom unless people are free from years of injustices, free from hunger and poverty, free from fear and unjust social norms. All this, this struggle for freedom was to be acheived by a means of the concepts of satygraha (firmness of truth) and ahimsa (non-violence).
He came from a caste called the vaishnava's or vaishnavite's. Traditionally they do not kill animals, do not eat meat, and believe and follows, although a staunch hindu, the buddhist and Jain doctrines of Non-violence. He moral values were deeply entrenched in the principles of non-violence. The notions of non-violence is prescribed by religious discourse as the way to redeem the sufferings of the human kind. The sorrows of death, deprivity, destruction, violence, killings, murder, annexation, loot, war, greed, etc could only be dealt with by the superior humans by changing its own brute nature and as a mark of a civilised human being.
It is in this light, that one should see Gandhi and his advices to various people and nations. The question was what 'should' be done. Morally Gandhi could not have said anything else than what he honestly thought needs to be done. It becomes a problem for those who sees him as any other politician or or a statesman. He is almost a saint is because of the fact that he said what he believed in, and not what was 'politicallly correct or strategically correct. Those things are for the menials like ordinary politicians and statesman, found in good measure in the early part of 20th century in Europe. His idea was to put Hitler to shame. He had also written two letters to Hitler, and had met Mussolini.
His cricts conveniently forgets these facts, while they distort the meanings of his messages. What is baffling is naivety is still an excuse in this internet age.
So to address one of the issue raised in this thread that off whether one would be stupid not to consider the consequnces of ones action, than Gandhi's thoughts and actions are the greatest examples in the modern era or history to demonstrate that a morally right action cannot be determined by what consequences will follow in the legal realm. It is stupidity at its best.
Gandhi was tried for 'treason', and the English judge, with a heavy heart and a tear had to sentence Gandhi to 6 years in prison according to extent British laws, but he agreed with Gandhi who argued in his own defense not to spare him of any punishment because he himself knew as a barrister of repute that he was legally wrong but was morally right.
The legal 'should' cannot be the moral 'ought'.