Bengal Famine

wildwood | 23:32 Wed 05th Oct 2016 | Society & Culture

21 Answers

Did Winston Churchill really say
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
during the Bengal Famine?

If this is true, why is he regarded as such a great statesman and idol?

Christmas Decorations

Star Trek

Answers

1 to 20 of 21

1 2 Next Last

naomi24

Best Answer

I don't think the concept of 'racism' existed in his day, did it? I've just finished reading an Agatha Christie book and some of the stuff in that surprised me .... until I thought about it. Times change.

12:10 Thu 06th Oct 2016

Go To Best Answer

Mamyalynne

I can't vouch for the truth of it but this article says he did.......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

Buenchico

This provides a good summary of the Bengal situation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html

Churchill also ordered the "terror bombing" (his own description) of Dresden, which had no great military significance:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11410633/Dresden-was-a-civilian-town-with-no-military-significance.-Why-did-we-burn-its-people.html

This is also worth reading:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/

>>> why is he regarded as such a great statesman and idol?

Simply because it's always the victors that write history. Churchill was clearly a war criminal but any history written just after the war by British historians wasn't going to show that. It's only more recent re-analysis of his actions that reveals the truth but there are still many people who'd prefer to believe the myths created by earlier war historians.

mastercraft

All is fair in love and war. Love, hate & kill.

jim360

Why does he need to be perfect to be regarded as a great statesman? It's an impossible standard and no-one in history has met it. That said, the racism is a huge, and sad, flaw. I don't think it detracts from his leadership in war -- and, for that matter, his less well-remembered attempts at securing peace in the early 1950s.

Togo

Let's trash Churchill and his legacy ...............................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
and sanctify Stalin and Pol Pot.

RandyMarsh

it is a question Togo.

Togo

Is there a question mark?

RandyMarsh

Yes, yes there is.

Togo

You don't really get irony do you RM? Even when it is as heavy as lead and as acidic as vinegar.

RandyMarsh

What is ironic about your post?

You are bleating about a question.

Togo

Scratch Scratch Meow meow. Wrong again. I was highlighting the proclivity of some, who love to traduce all things British. My dear old "dad" used to say that Hitler would have found plenty here to undertake his vile work if he had managed to land here. He was not wrong. Churchill prevented that, with the help of the British people, for 3 long years the only world leader prepared to defy the Nazis. But the stirrers and agitators rise and disseminate their twisted versions of events as his own bravery and vision grows more distant. Shame on them.

jim360

It's possible to praise the man for what he did, while accepting that he was in many ways horribly flawed. There shouldn't be a contradiction. He was a racist -- as indeed were so many other people -- and his micromanaging wasn't always brilliant either.

Oh, and Gallipoli.

jim360

Sorry, I stopped my post too early. I was meaning to add that his being racist didn't stop him from being the leader we needed in the Second World War. And the world, too, should be grateful for that. That doesn't make him immune from criticism.

naomi24

-- answer removed --