There was a book on this called Churchill’s Secret War going over the actions of Churchill. If anyone wants to hear the author in her own discussion of the book, this is an old episode of bloggingheads that goes into some of it.
Recorded in the diary of the Viceroy of India. entry for 4 July 1944 (published in Wavell: the Viceroy’s Journal, ed. Penderel Moon, 1973).
Opinion*
Lord Wavell records Churchill’s response of 5 July 1944 to Wavell’s telegram for aid to the starving in Bengal: “Winston sent me a peevish telegram to ask why Gandhi hadn’t died yet! He has never answered my [Wavell’s] telegram about food.” *
Churchill was also big on starving white people, so it’s all good.
Books have been written about the rivalry between Churchill and Gandhi, Churchill got on better with Nehru (they went to the same school.)
Churchill thought Gandhi was a con man - a fake fakir who regularly used a hunger strike as a form of political protest. Like most of the leaders of Indian Independence, Gandhi was a trained lawyer. Sounds like Churchill was being typically facetious about a rival.
I don’t see how that quote really says much at all.
[quote=“Salvor, post:21, topic:795607”]
There was a book on this called Churchill’s Secret War going over the actions of Churchill. If anyone wants to hear the author in her own discussion of the book, this is an old episode of bloggingheads that goes into some of it.
[/QUOTE]Thanks for posting that link, Salvor. I watched the hour-long video all the way through (unusual for frazzled low-attention-span me). The video discusses much more than Churchill of course … and Madhusree Mukerjee is now one of my heroines! 
It seems sad that this video has been up for more than 3 years and has attracted only 1200 views.
Madhusree Mukherjee and others of non-white descent participated in a debate over Churchill’s racist legacy, and the British public has not responded well, with calls for shutting down any future public discussions.
In a sea of fawningly reverential Churchill biographies, hardly any books seriously examine his documented racism. Nothing, it seems, can be allowed to complicate, let alone tarnish, the national myth of a flawless hero: an idol who “saved our civilisation”, as Boris Johnson claims, or “humanity as a whole”, as David Cameron did. Make an uncomfortable observation about his views on white supremacy and the likes of Piers Morgan will ask: “Why do you live in this country?”
The scholars at the Cambridge event – Madhusree Mukerjee, Onyeka Nubia and Kehinde Andrews – drew attention to Churchill’s dogged advocacy of British colonial rule; his contributing role in the disastrous 1943 Bengal famine, in which millions of people died unnecessarily; his interest in eugenics; and his views, deeply retrograde even for his time, on race.
Churchill is on record as praising “Aryan stock” and insisting it was right for “a stronger race, a higher-grade race” to take the place of indigenous peoples. He reportedly did not think “black people were as capable or as efficient as white people”. In 1911, Churchill banned interracial boxing matches so white fighters would not be seen losing to black ones. He insisted that Britain and the US shared “Anglo-Saxon superiority”. He described anticolonial campaigners as “savages armed with ideas”.
Even his contemporaries found his views on race shocking. In the context of Churchill’s hard line against providing famine relief to Bengal, the colonial secretary, Leo Amery, remarked: “On the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane … I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.”
Why not get on Churchill for not meeting with Rudolf Hess? At least that story doesn’t have credibility trouble.
Well,
-
Why can’t both be true?
-
It seems a stretch to say he ENGINEERED a genocide. He didn’t want millions of people to die. It is not a stretch to say that he didn’t seem to care if they did, though.
Well, because it would have done as much good as meeting with Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Hess didn’t speak for Hitler or the Nazi regime; he was a traitor the instant he stole that Bf-110.
Adding to the bizarre nature of the story is that Hess flat out SAID he didn’t speak for Hitler. Insisted on it, in fact. Which, of course, made the British dismiss him as a madman.
This is why Churchill was the right leader, he would never make a peace deal with the Nazis.
If Halifax had been the PM, he wanted to sign a peace treaty with Hitler, and apparently Hitler was willing to offer generous terms. That would have turned the tide of the whole war.
No allied aid to USSR and no second front, means the Germans would have beat Russia. Stalin himself said as much.
Japan still likely attacks the USA. America turns their full force against them. Japan is stomped.
The USSR survives behind the Urals. Pretty much all Europe is under the Nazi’s. (Sweden and Spain are friendly neutrals, GB & the Swiss are neutral).
For what?
This GD isnt about whether or not Churchill was a racist. He likely was. Born in 1874.
It is about whether or not he deliberately starved millions of Bengals. And Kimstu has shown that he did not.
Only if they had to Invade. If Halifax had been PM, and made a deal about the time of the collapse of france, Hitler was apparently going to just give the British peace, not surrender, per se. Maybe some African colonies.
It is true that the Brits made up a list of what the Nazis were gonna do, but that is just British war propaganda.
Far from being “British was propaganda”, the Sonderfahndungsliste G.B. (or “Black Book”) was real, as were similar lists drawn up and used by the Nazis in conquered nations.
after a successful Nazi invasion in 1940.
Note that word “AFTER” . Not in case of a peace treaty between the two nations where GB would not even be occupied.
That was rhetorical.
Agreed on that very last bit. Clearly one can imagine Winston taking a position aloing the lines of “do what it takes to ensure that if we fail the enemy is denied resources – too bad if a bunch of Those Other People die as a result.” There is no question he was a racist and an imperialist who thought little of the opinions or lives of the subjects.
We may be down to arguing whether it’s more immoral to want you to die or not care if you die, given a course of action that can reasonably be expected to lead there anyway.
Meanwhile back at home he is serving the cause of victory for his country and people against the Nazis and Fascists (in that, joining together with none other than Stalin, mind you.)
So yeah, both “He was a racist imperialist bastard whose decisions led to/worsened the Great Famine” AND “He was an inspiring leader of his country towards victory”.
It’s up to each of us what do we do about knowing that.
Churchill was not a good person. We admire him today because he stood up against an even worse person.
He was willing to kill as many French sailors as necessary to win the war too. I dont think he was any too concerned with the color of their skin, as long as the Allies beat the Nazis. Winning the war was his sole goal, he didnt care who died or suffered as long as GB remained free and the Nazis lost.
Likely that was the only way to look at it when you are fighting evil assholes like the Nazis.
A Great Man, but a bad person. Sometimes you have that odd dichotomy.
I just did a little research. This remark had nothing at all to do with the famine.
Amery (a lifelong friend of Churchill) was in fact arguing with him about the Sterling Balance with India, that is, the fact that England owed a financial debt to India due to war borrowing. It was specifically on this topic that he made this remark to Churchill.
From Speaking for England by David Faber, which I found on archive.org
In fact, Amery didn’t care about the famine in India at all. Waverall, the Viceroy, had to threaten to resign before he could get Amery to take any action.
So Gopal is deliberately distorting the remark and taking it out of context. That puts his good faith in question, and sows doubt about everything else he says.
Like I said: credibility trouble. 