Andreas Koureas

Winston Churchill isn’t to blame for the Bengal famine

Winston Churchill (Photo by Evening Standard/Getty Images)

Sir Winston Churchill arguably saved civilisation as we know it. Had Britain capitulated to Germany after the fall of France, the Nazis would have been able to dedicate their entire force to the invasion of the Soviet Union, probably taking the entire Eurasian front. North Africa would have become fascist Italy’s playhouse, with the United States isolated. So it is perhaps no surprise that those who despise Great Britain, its institutions and values, have done their utmost to attack the greatest Briton in history.  

In the course of these attacks, Churchill has been painted as a racist and a genocidal tyrant who deliberately starved millions of Indians in the Bengal famine. Nothing could be further from the truth.  

When facing the serious allegation that Churchill deliberately worsened the Bengal famine, it is essential to look at the primary sources: what was actually said at the time, and what the actual policies were.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in