There is a growing number of people who paint Winston Churchill as a historical figure deserving criticism, not praise. To what extent is this true, and what aspects of his life are worth critiquing?

by GrecoRomanGuy

I recently listened to Malcolm Gladwell’s Revisionist History podcast on Churchill and his friend Lindemann, which focuses on the Indian famine. That, plus an admittedly funny line in an epic rap battle of history (“And let’s admit it: you’re not all that great!/You tossed away lives at Gallipoli like they were scraps off your plate!”) made me realize that there is a growing field that paint Churchill in a negative light.

I only really know him as Mr. “We Shall Fight on the Beaches”. What are some aspects of his life/career that are not so heroic?

Superplaner

The topic of Churchills culpability in the Bengal Famine has been discussed extensively before:

Here is a good summary by /u/vonadler

Here is a more in depth explanation by /u/gnikivar2

Here is a very very in depth run-down by /u/Naugrith that is a personal favourite of mine

As for gallipoli i recommend

This post by /u/thefourthmaninaboat who explains Gallipoli better than I could ever hope to.

There is also this post by /u/wingchild, /u/abrytan and others which discusses Churchill's actions in general.

[deleted]

This is another thread.

drylaw

Sorry, but we have removed your response, as we expect answers in this subreddit to be in-depth and comprehensive, and that sources utilized reflect current academic understanding of the topic at hand. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the rules, as well as our expectations for an answer such as featured on Twitter or in the Sunday Digest.