Thread by @AndreasKoureas_

Sir Winston Churchill neither caused nor contributed to the Bengal Famine of 1943.

As someone who has spent countless hours reading through hundreds of pages of primary sources, what was actually said and done, here's what really happened.

(Sources are cited at the end.)

This thread is split into two parts:
- Cause of Famine & status of war in the region.
- Churchill response & clearing up misconceptions.

1) The Cause:

On October 16th 1942, a cyclone hit Bengal & Orissa, wiping out the rice crop harvest in the process.

Surrounding areas previously used to purchase foodstuff to alleviate famines/shortfalls had all fallen to Japan. This being in particular Burma but also Malaya, the Philippines & Thailand.

Imperial Japan maintained a fleet in the Bay of Bengal from April 1942.

Such a fleet was dangerous to merchant ships, as they could sink them - killing the men on board and destroying foodstuffs and equipment.

This danger continued well into 1944. Dated 01/03/1944, Churchill's copy of a paper for the Chiefs of Staff Committee of the War Cabinet...

demonstrated the closeness of potential Japanese battleship/carrier raiding force in the Bay of Bengal. They had surrounded the region from near the Maldives all the way to the south coast of Burma.

The October '42 cyclone also damaged roads, telecom systems and railways.

Railway lines needed to move food were washed away. Moreover, this cyclone prevented the normal winter harvest in Northern India, preventing this food aid.

Japan had invaded India, Imphal & Kohima and was conducting many Eastern/Southern bombing raids. Such raids worsened...

food shortages. For example, in Dec. 1943, severe backlogs were at the ports in Calcutta from Japanese bombing.
Accidents worsened the crisis - April '44 a ship caught fire & blew up. 36,000 tonnes of foodstuff lost. Port not fully operational till October '44.

Constitutionally, the famine was a responsibility of the local administration - majority Muslim natives.
They failed to deal with it. Lack of grain supply paired with general inflation crisis encouraged hoarding.

2) Churchill's response:

Upon finding out how awful the famine was, the Churchill administration did its best to alleviate it.

Between August 1943- December 1944, over 1 million tons of grain were sent to India.

This is in spite of the Allies suffering from a deep shipping crisis.

Churchill, on multiple occasions summoned the War Cabinet to discuss & order shipments. Some examples of the War Cabinet responses:

- 10th November 1943: 100,000 tons of food grain to be shipped first 2 months of '44.
- War Cabinet Meeting No. 63: "Since mid-October...

130,000 tons of barley" & "80,000 tons of wheat from Australia." In January & February 1944 - 10,000 tons of wheat from Canada & 100,000 from Australia.

- Amery (S.of State for India) in August 1943, shows Cabinet agreed to send 100,000 tons of barley from Iraq & 50,000...

from Australia.
Correspondence between Churchill & M. King in Nov 1943 (PM of Canada) shows that rather sending 100,000 tons of grain from Canada where shipping was stressed, he would have it sent from Australia as it would India quicker and was less of a logistical nightmare.

Churchill did his best to aid India despite the shipping crisis and time constraints. Had the shipments gone from Canada it would take up to 2 months compared to 3-4 weeks from Australia.

He told Amery he would help him all he could, but not to expect 'the impossible.'

He even pleaded Roosevelt for help in a telegram on 29/4/44 where he states he was 'seriously concerned' and that,

"by cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000...

tons of wheat to be shipped [...] This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more."
(Roosevelt would decline aid from the US due to their own shipping strain.)

Another key example of his concern was when Amery sent a telegram on,

9th February 1944 asking Churchill for extra assistance not to repeat the famine of 1943.

Churchill responded by summoning the war cabinet. They did all they could to figure out a strategy for more shipping but as Churchill said,

"We simply cannot find the shipping...

Everything is involved in the Operation and our own import cut to the bare minimum. The secretary of State is cabling you at length. Every good wish amid your anxieties.'

So what of Churchill's racist comments which are used as evidence of his hatred for Indians?

He didn't hate India. He was a paternalistic imperialist. Condescending yes, but not genocidal.

Context for his quotes are taken in Amery's diaries. It was said in a burst of anger as the Quit India movement was aiding the Japanese.

Why were they aiding the Japanese? Because they declined to negotiate and compromise whilst the Japanese were invading India.

Churchill, under deep stress, and also ill (heart attack in December 1941, pneumonia later etc.) clearly broke for a second there and on many other,

occasions, according to Amery's diaries out of stress.

The statesman was carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Quick bursts of anger did not reflect his policies or his actual views.

The problem is that people don't read Amory's diaries. They read what other

people say Amery wrote. Amery states how they would let 'Churchill blow off steam' and in 1945, he calls Churchill 'a remarkable man' after visiting him, when he is no longer PM.

Contextually, it is clear that Churchill, did not hate India.

If he was, why would he send so much grain to India Why would he in his speech in 1931, ‘Our Duty to India’ demonstrate his concern for the Untouchables?

Also, why would he state “I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud...

as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia.”

Why would he then say, after India is granted more powers that,

“I do not care whether you are more or less loyal to Great Britain. I do not mind about edu­ca­tion, but give the masses more butter. . . . Tell Mr. Gandhi to use the pow­ers that are offered and make the thing a success. . . . I am gen­uinely sym­pa­thetic towards India.

I have got real fears about the future . . . but you have got the things now; make a suc­cess and if you do I will advo­cate you get­ting much more.”

This are just a few examples that go against the ahistorical narrative made on him and India.

Of course, given the limitation of the thread, I have provided the most relevant sources above.

There are many not mentioned here, as there is no space, but these will all be explored in my research paper next year on Churchill and the Bengal Famine.