Sadly many FReepers fail to research “the rest of the story” comfortably convinced there’s no need to question historic saints.
Churchill may very well have saved England.
However, the reality of his complicity in the Bengal Famine that killed 4 Million in India cannot be denied, as he is still sorely remembered as a brutal English master who very openly dispised the brown skined people of India.
England’s Empire harvested India.
In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal.
During an appearance at the Melbourne writers’ festival broadcast by ABC, the Indian MP noted Churchill’s orders related to Australian ships carrying wheat at Indian docks.
“This is a man the British would have us hail as an apostle of freedom and democracy, when he has as much blood on his hands as some of the worst genocidal dictators of the 20th century,” he said to applause.
He added: “People started dying and Churchill said well it’s all their fault anyway for breeding like rabbits.
He said ‘I hate the Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion’.”
It's called "collateral damage". England was in a fight to the death with German Nazism....what exactly do you suggest she should have done differently.