[mbroncano]

Reading this, it comes to mind one of the most unknown episodes of Churchill’s life is the Bengal famine of 1943 [1], in which he was personally responsible for the death of at least two million Indian. I guess that painting and writing wasn’t enough of a past time. Gallipoli wasn’t really something to write letters home about, you just need to read something mildly objective to realize the kind of sick person this man was.

The point I’m trying to make is, History is written by winners. In most contexts, this man would be nothing more than another early 20th century psychopath. Certainly not a hero, a giant or even a decent human being. Wouldn’t he had been kicked out of 10 Downing St. Europe would have certainly suffered another WW2 aftermath, only to feed his personal and sick bloodlust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

[oldcynic]

Quite the attack based on few facts.

Personally responsible?

The war cabinet rejected requests for food aid when Mountbatten requested them. The cabinet was far more than just Churchill as would be seen from released Cabinet papers.

You can't take that in peace time isolation. This was at a time when Britain was losing hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping in the North Atlantic and Burma had just fallen - leading to many Japanese attacks in the Bay of Bengal and putting Bengal right on the front with Japan.

Much of the famine was the direct result of internal trade restrictions by the Indian states put up after the fall of Burma. I don't know too much of the background to that so can't comment more.

If you're going to criticise at least pick on his actual flaws or mistakes.

[acjohnson55]

I feel similar about stories about George W Bush's painting hobby. We're still trying to extricate ourselves from the aftermath of the totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, which is responsible for a couple hundred thousand dead there, and likely ultimately led to ISIS and many of the worst parts of the Syrian crisis.

[lostlogin]

If my memory of the time is correct, Bush had a weird thing about comparing himself to Churchill.

[lostlogin]

Compare him to the leader who was the prime driver behind the allied victory, and I know which leader I’d pick.

[mcguire]

Josef Stalin? Yep.

[aaron-lebo]

This is inaccurate. Churchill if anything was underrated by history. The Gallipoli disaster occurred not because of his plans (which was a quick naval attack up the straits, which the British were on the verge of doing and the Turks later admitted would have taken Constantinople had then done so - probably ending the war much earlier, saving millions in Europe, Russia, and elsewhere).

This is a man also largely responsible for the tank (also ending the war, eventually) and probably the main reason Britain did not back down in 1940, saving much of the world from far far worse in Nazi Germany. We can disagree about his methods, but he was probably right in why he was so aggressive after WW2 - he saw the USSR for what it was, as he did many things through his life.

Not without flaw or mistake, but to describe him as you have is not very accurate. There's few people who deserve to be considered "great men", but he was one of them. Even if not, he was not the one sided caricature you have put forward. I'd suggest a good, in-depth biography.

It's perhaps easier to understand some of him when you read the pleadings of a boy for his parents to see or respond to him, which they ignored while they had time for the king and the rest of British high society. This is a man whom actually fought in battles, didn't shy away from conflict or duty, unlike some in his social class. He was at times a liberal and at times a conservative (and took principled stands for both sides), but at the end of the day, was not a monster and was much better than most. The victors may write history, but sometimes there is a reason they won.

To offer a counter-example, consider Churchill's dressing down of the man responsible for the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre in front of Parliament:

http://www.indiaofthepast.org/contribute-memories/read-contr...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Both Secretary of State for War Winston Churchill and former Prime Minister H. H. Asquith however, openly condemned the attack, Churchill referring to it as "monstrous", while Asquith called it "one of the worst outrages in the whole of our history".[54] Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons debate of 8 July 1920, said, "The crowd was unarmed, except with bludgeons. It was not attacking anybody or anything… When fire had been opened upon it to disperse it, it tried to run away. Pinned up in a narrow place considerably smaller than Trafalgar Square, with hardly any exits, and packed together so that one bullet would drive through three or four bodies, the people ran madly this way and the other. When the fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, the fire was then directed down on the ground. This was continued to 8 to 10 minutes, and it stopped only when the ammunition had reached the point of exhaustion."[55] After Churchill's speech in the House of Commons debate, MPs voted 247 to 37 against Dyer and in support of the Government.[56] Cloake reports that despite the official rebuke, many Britons "thought him a hero for saving the rule of British law in India."[57]

Dyer was celebrated by the pubic at large both before and after the attack (and after this speech). But if Winston was a such an inhumane monster, why take the side he did? You'll find in many occasions in history, he took principled and considered if not always correct positions. He certainly wasn't a Hilter or even a Bush.

For more reading:

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Lion-Winston-Churchill-1874-1932...

[mito88]

this book makes a valid point:

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0307405168/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_e...

[oldcynic]

No, it really doesn't. It's pulp fiction fantasy.

I read it when it came out and I enjoyed it - as fiction. I like alternative histories - I've read many. I enjoyed the novel SS-GB 30 years ago far more, it was far more credible.

From memory... His whole argument is built on the assumption all Hitler wanted from Poland was the return of Danzig, and that all Germany wanted was peace and prosperity, but poor harmless Germany was surrounded by oppressive enemies. The same oppressors who spent 15 years appeasing whilst Germany occupied Rhineland, Austria and Sudetenland (Czechoslovakia) Well, there are so many ways to tear down the second point I barely know where to start.

So let's have a go at the first. He claims Hitler wanted Poland as an ally so clearly only wanted Danzig. So how better to gain an ally than invade them? So he starts trying to make a case that German diplomatic efforts were entirely honest and seeking to preserve peace. Further he dismisses the Polish politicians in short order (as some historians have done). It does rather raise the question of why then would Germany want an alliance.

Nonetheless they signed a non-aggression pact (note: not an alliance) in the mid 30s. Germany then sought to be given sovereignty of Danzig the surrounding region and roads leading to it (includig a half-built autobahn) in, I think 36 or 37. Poland declined, ultimately resulting in the 39 German ultimatum and invasion. Yup, definitely seeking an ally.

From there he builds on those unlikely assumptions and dives off into fantasy and antisemitism. Oh, and if Britain had accepted the Nazi's 1940 peace offer the Holocaust would not have happened at all. Even with all the antisemitism in Germany throughout the 30s and the propaganda and violence against them? Further he claims moral equivalence between Hitler and Churchill. Oh dear, really?

You could make a credible case of an unnecessary war, but it would resemble this book barely at all. There's a lot of arguments and ways you could approach that.

You might start with Churchill's (surprising given his history) actions as Chancellor in the 20s. The disastrous return to the Gold Standard, and by dramatically reducing defence budgets, especially naval, encouraged further German rearming and especially naval building. One of the few points I was able to agree with in the book was his criticism of Churchill's adoption of the Ten Year Rule. Though he makes it as a minor argument.

You might also point at the harsh terms of Versailles and the failure of the post-war alliance. It's worth noting Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points War Aims and instigation of the League of Nations. Not to forget the Americans never actually got as far as officially joining the League which significantly weakened the global standing of it. As far as reparations go it was Clemenceau who wanted harsh terms - mainly as so much of the war took place on French soil. With the obvious expenses that caused. Lloyd George argued firmly against excessive reparations. The United States Senate voted down the agreed 3 party post-war alliance with France and Britain. Churchill wanted an Anglo-French alliance in the absence of Americans to keep the continental peace but was unsuccessful. None were willing to occupy alone. Thus reoccupation of Rhineland, Sudetenland etc were rather easier than they should have been. The rest is factual history.

Forgive any mistakes. It'll all be on Wikipedia so I'm not going to link.

[thesumit67]

Dyre or churchill most of them just ruined India.