"It was a failure of prioritisation, says Toye."
"Arthur Herman, author of Gandhi & Churchill, has argued that without Churchill the famine would have been worse. Once he was fully aware of the famine's extent, "Churchill and his cabinet sought every way to alleviate the suffering without undermining the war effort" "
now that we've cleared up your illiteracy, lets go through the points in the article.
1- Churchill was no more racist than any other person at that time. in fact, he was arguably less so given that he was alive during the rise of progressive eugenics and 'scientific' proof regarding racial differences. this is explained in the article YOU linked.
2. poison gas use. im not gonna defend that but limitations on weaponry in war was both new and still is a very complicated subject, particularly when such standards are not universally upheld (only europeans could come up with the idea of 'fair' warfare).
3. bengal famine, we've already been through.
4. statements about ghandi. if Churchill's worst features are: being unfair in war and mean comments about an opposing political figure who openly degrades the nation, culture and society you love. im sure we can find some worse people to waste our lives crying about.
5. anti-Semitism... Churchill was a virulent supporter of the zionist movement, and his supposed dislike of the jews (aside from that which was/is normal) was based off of an unpublished article that he MAY have written. especially when he is openly called jews the most formidable race.
6. the sixth point in the article is literally a compliment to Churchill.... wow must be a terrible person.
7. treatment of unions. wells he's conservative and they're understanding of economics means they don't like unions and even with that he was still pretty good towards unions, with most stories of brutality being unfounded. in fact Churchill's government was supposedly better to unions than normal conservatives.
8. because he was too involved with leading the policemen in the takedown of a Latvian anarchist gang... literally nothing to do with morality, its just cus people thought he shouldn't involve himself in such manners. by modern standards he would be praised probably.
9. criticism because the soldiers were far too violent in Ireland (and since Churchill controlled them all through the hive-mind this is understandable). but with regards to his actual beliefs he was more progressive than his party.
10. this point is literally just the archetype of someone looking at the past and degrading a person based off their own morality, without any knowledge of the morality of the past.
realistically you and gunt are probably the most immoral people here since you believe yourself to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong.