Last year Malcolm Gladwell's "Revisionist History" podcast had an episode where he quite convincingly argued that Churchill's racism caused him to refuse to provide assistance to the Bengal famine, indirectly causing the deaths of up to 3 million people. Gladwell stated that grain shipments from Australia could easily have been diverted and that the British food supply was secure by this stage in the war so there was no reason not to do so. He even quoted from contemporary accounts which directly compared Churchill's view of Indians to Hitler's of Jews.
This week the historian Andrew Roberts in an interview on the BBC "history extra" podcast stated that Churchill bore no responsibilty for failing to mitigate the famine. He stated that Japanese naval power would have made aid shipments impossible, that it was the local government and civil service (largely made up of Indians) that allowed food to continue to be shipped out of Bengal that was most guilty of exacerbating the problem and that Churchill did in fact request assistance from the Americans. His view was that while Churchill was undoubtedly racist by modern standards, he had a paternalistic and largely benign attitude towards the non-European parts of the British empire.
I was struck by how these two completely opposing views of such a well known figure could both exist in fairly mainstream media. Which of these views is closest to the mainstream historical consensus?
He stated that Japanese naval power would have made aid shipments impossible, that it was the local government and civil service (largely made up of Indians) that allowed food to continue to be shipped out of Bengal that was most guilty of exacerbating the problem and that Churchill did in fact request assistance from the Americans.
The facts that we have fundamentally disagree with this position.
Indian grain from Madras province (on the same coast as Bengal) was shipped out to the Mediterranean theater without any attacks by the Japanese navy
Australian grain to Europe passed by then Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) as that was the main shipping channel. SL is about 20kms from a main seaport in TN, from where grain could have easily been shipped via rail.
I would like to understand if Roberts cited sources for his claims? If yes would you remember them? Because what he is saying is not entirely factual. Even on American assistance, it is an interesting position because Churchill refused Australian aid and as clarified, this was right on the shipping channel to Europe, and it would be interesting to understand why he then chose American aid? Which is why his sources would be good.
Thanks everyone for your replies.
Roberts was talking in an informal interview promoting his new biography of Churchill so it's perhaps understandable that (as a I recall) he did not really provide any detailed references. I would hope that he does so in the book itself. The podcast is available here:
https://www.historyextra.com/article-type/podcast/
I did feel that he seemed rather biased towards Churchill and therefore always looking to put the best possible gloss on things, even where he seemingly admitted the man's faults- something I also noticed where hearing him talk about Napoleon- whose biography has also written.
Nonetheless it seems like there is still a lack of consensus on this issue.