**TL;DR** - **Outside of the Second World War, certain moments tarnish Churchill's legacy.** What Churchill did for Britain during his first term in office (1940-1945) is immeasurable. He undoubtedly played one of the most important roles in preventing the rise of Nazi Germany. As a result of this, he will (and rightly so) be held in high regard and will remain one of the most important historical figures of the 20th century. _However_, it is easy to forget that there were moments in Churchill's past which reflect poorly on him. This begins with the effect that [Churchill's policies had on the 1943 famine in Bengal] (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study). It has been argued that the war-time policies of the Churchill government continued to export rice from India to elsewhere in the empire. This decision couples with reports that Churchill ignored warnings of the crisis in India. This has been labelled as a 'denial policy'. With all this, it is possible to argue that the Bengal famine along with the war against Germany formed a perfect storm. Those who look to defend Churchill will say that it was impossible for him to balance the war with the famine, but this in itself is a denial policy. Just because Churchill is a war hero does not mean that his deeds cannot be questioned.

**TL; DR - Churchill was an iconic figure but labelling him as a hero might be going too far.** • The meaning of the term ‘hero’ is inevitably going to differ depending on who you ask, which is why some view Winston Churchill as deserving of that title and why others disagree. • As a Brit, the first thing I think of when someone says Churchill, is the Second World War and the role he played during that period, which is characterised as important, influential, and imperative to overcoming the Nazis and eventually winning the War. His speeches were one of the reasons for this and are still today referenced within discussions of bravery, leadership, and heroism. • But as far as I’m concerned, this is as far as any discussion of [‘heroism’]( https://theconversation.com/winston-churchill-hero-or-villain-111865) goes when talking about Churchill. • A huge proportion of his career was [extremely problematic]( https://www.forbes.com/sites/gautammukunda/2020/07/01/churchill-the-failure-the-paradoxical-truth-about-the-best-and-worst-leaders/?sh=1d6b5699636e) and is often overshadowed by Britain’s victory in WW2. He had some outrageous views, which make it very difficult for me personally to label him a hero. He believed strongly in _racial hierarchies and eugenics_ and failed to help India in preventing the awful _Bengal famine of 1943_. Whilst slightly less extreme, he also facilitated some pretty bad _treatment of strikers_. • Considering my political standpoint, I find it very difficult to label any Conservative Prime Minister in this country as a ‘hero’ - but this doesn’t mean they haven’t existed for other people. Whilst I wouldn’t necessarily use this term to describe him, I also accept the fact that I didn’t live through the Second World War and therefore wouldn’t necessarily understand, to the same degree, why some consider him a hero.

**Anti-fascist hero or genocidal dictator?** • Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965) is best known for being the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 – 1945 and 1951 – 1955. He has historically been well-respected and celebrated for his [leadership](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Winston-Churchill/Leadership-during-World-War-II) during the Second World War which ultimately won victory for the Allied Forces against the Nazis. • Many consider Churchill’s first term at office to be heroic, due to his determined involvement in the war effort against fascism, and his strengths as a military strategist and public speaker. British society has traditionally valued patriotism, strength, and nobility as signs of heroism; Churchill routinely appealed to and exhibited these qualities in his [rhetoric](https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/speeches-about-winston-churchill/his-speeches-how-churchill-did-it/), which effectively inspired the nation to partake in the war effort. As a young man Churchill served as a soldier for the United Kingdom, which many also cite as evidence of his heroism. • However, many believe that Churchill’s other acts and beliefs counteract his positive influence in the war. Some argue that Churchill’s commitment to imperialism (which is now often considered unethical) and racist beliefs mean that he should not be celebrated as a hero. Many hold that he was responsible for the [deaths of 3 million](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study) Indian people during the Bengal famine of 1943 by draining India’s resources for the British, and refusing to send aid. One Indian politician, Dr Shashi Tharoor, goes as far to name Churchill a [‘genocidal dictator’](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html) due to his exploitation of India.

**The main issue with calling Churchill a hero concerns the standards we set for someone to be regarded a hero.** Without repeating the previous commentary on Churchill's history, I will provide merely more opinions. - Although many people, myself included, are grateful for his successful fight against Nazism, it does not feel right to call someone a hero who has commited such [heinous acts](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-dark-side-winston-churchill-2118317.html). - We should not pick and choose which good deeds of his to acknowledge, and equally which bad ones to disregard. - 'Hero' is a huge word which should be reserved for only the greatest and most inspirational of humanity. To call Churchill a 'hero' implies he is a wholly positive role model and acknowledges only the good and none of the bad. - Churchill's legacy did leave both very good, and very harmful impacts on the world, which is a frequent consequence of being a ruler and not sufficient or deserving of a hero title. - To refuse to regard Churchill as a hero is not to disregard the good he did, but to recognise that his darker side do not fit the standards and expectations of what a hero should be.