Leopold was responsible for 1.5 to 13 million deaths. And a slave trade that effected many many more lives than that.

The difference being that one was an act of cruel apathy, their lives were valued less than the war effort (one could even argue that the British hoped to ultimately save lives), while the other actively reveled in and advanced the industrialised mass murder of entire peoples.

I think this is letting Churchill off a bit too easily.

At the time, India was under British rule. Both the British government, and the Crown knew what was going on in Bengal, and chose inaction. Churchill himself openly held anti-Indian sentiment calling them "a beastly people with a beastly religion" and that any sort of relief sent would accomplish little to nothing as as Indians are "breeding like rabbits."

This man actively chose to let people under his rule starve.

It's also worth pointing out that India was a significant presence during WWII, "By the end of the war, it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945", and a significant contributor to the state of things is how hard the British colonial rule pressed the local industries for the sake of the war. The military sucked up a lot of produce leaving scraps for the domestic market, which was significantly upcharged so only the rich classes could afford anything.

In the system that the British Government used to procure goods through the Government of India, industries were left in private ownership rather than facing outright requisitioning of their productive capacity. Firms were required to sell goods to the military on credit and at fixed, low prices. However, firms were left free to charge any price they desired in their domestic market for whatever they had left over.

Further, the British government censored media, forbidding them from reporting on the famine. Things didn't really take a turn until The Statesman published photos of the famine, which made it around the world and the British government stood there with egg on their face.

Churchill on the other hand, ate well.

Churchills attitude and comments about it suggests otherwise. He was hailed as an evil cruel racist, not in retrospect, but during the war. Churchill wasn’t well liked, as people think he was during his time. The people that think Churchill was one of Britain best PMs have only a basic understanding of British history. Churchill was immediately voted out as soon as elections resumed. When he got back in a PM his party had less votes than the opposition.

Churchill was nevertheless a PoS. For example he was also responsible for the Greek civil war post-ww2

You're absolutely right. I was trying to be concise and in turn made it sound pretty accusatory.

There has been a number of investigations by both the British and Indian governments since the famine. The general consensus is that it was caused by bad management and unresolved socio-economic issues over any purposeful acts of cruelty.

I personally don't think Churchill actively encouraged the famine in India, but he was an ardent supporter of maintaining the empire by any means necessary.

Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong have all committed atrocities far worse. And I do agree that Leopold belongs on that list too.

You could make that same argument for stalin and the holodomor which is often used as the main proof of his evilness. Same with mao, most of the deaths attributed to them are from failed policies that caused mass famines. Do you think Churchill is on the same level as them? Because most of the west views the first two as mass murdering tyrants and Churchill as a hero.

You could say there worse because they ran oppressive authoritarian states, but the British empire was just as authoritarian to anyone who wasn't white.

Churchill fought with the Spanish trying to crush the independence movement in Cuba in the 1895 Cuban War of Independence.

He wanted to fight against the Pashtun Mohmand tribe in north-west India, but was assigned a position as a journalist rather than a combat position.

He also fought for the British army against the Boer republics in the Second Boer War.

It's not like this guy was just idly opining about race and imperialism, he was enthusiastically engaging in the violent wars as a soldier to further those imperialist conquests. I'm sure as a politician he played an important role in preserving those power dynamics as well (alas I'm no expert on Churchill and I'm only reading about him because of this post).

That said, the original post was only pointing out that Churchill would be taboo if his racism and imperialism victimized Europeans, and I would agree that this is more likely to make him taboo. We see this kind of logic with how the conflicts in Syria are treated differently than the conflicts in Ukraine. I think people are willing to overlook imperialism and racist violence when it doesn't impact white people.