Was Winston Churchill as bad as some people say?

by TsarAleksanderIII

There has been a fair amount of debate about Winston Churchill, and I'm wondering if there's any serious claims against him that are true. Some accuse him off genocide in India, of being horribly racist, etc. Others say that he was not responsible for the famine in India and that his other opinions were unremarkable for the time.

So I'm wondering: is there a strong case to be made against him or is this poor historical interpretation?

mikedash

There is a lot to say about this issue, and hopefully a few of our specialists in the period and the man will be able to elaborate on some of them for you in due course. But this is a topic that has come up here from time to time and, while you you are waiting for fresh responses to your query, you might like to review a couple of these earlier threads, for example this debate led by u/Abrytan...

Was Churchill really a racist war criminal as alleged by a recent op ed in the Washington Post?

Meanwhile, this thread with u/Superplaner contains links to a number of other AH discussions of controversial aspects of Churchill's career, including the Bengal Famine and Gallipoli:

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?