→Reception: context and publication
>Wham2001 (Merge refs & fix harv/sfn multiple-target error) |
imported>Jr8825 (→Reception: context and publication) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
In his book ''Hungry Bengal: War, Famine, Riots and the End of Empire'' (2015), the historian Janam Mukherjee argued that ''Churchill's Secret War'' belongs to the "nationalist mode of Indian historiography", but that it "nevertheless provides moving insight into the colossal indifference, and at times sheer spite, that characterized London's attitude toward starving Bengal".<ref>{{cite book |last=Mukherjee |first=Janam |title=Hungry Bengal: War, Famine and the End of Empire|date=2015 |publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|page=168}}</ref> [[Shashi Tharoor]]'s review in ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' concluded: "Churchill said that history would judge him kindly because he intended to write it himself. The self-serving but elegant volumes he authored on the war led the Nobel Committee, unable in all conscience to bestow him an award for peace, to give him, astonishingly, the Nobel Prize for Literature—an unwitting tribute to the fictional qualities inherent in Churchill's self-justifying embellishments. Mukerjee's book depicts a truth more awful than any fiction."<ref>{{cite web|last=Tharoor |first=Shashi |url=http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html |title=Books: Churchill's Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine|work=Time |date=29 November 2010}}</ref> | In his book ''Hungry Bengal: War, Famine, Riots and the End of Empire'' (2015), the historian Janam Mukherjee argued that ''Churchill's Secret War'' belongs to the "nationalist mode of Indian historiography", but that it "nevertheless provides moving insight into the colossal indifference, and at times sheer spite, that characterized London's attitude toward starving Bengal".<ref>{{cite book |last=Mukherjee |first=Janam |title=Hungry Bengal: War, Famine and the End of Empire|date=2015 |publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|page=168}}</ref> [[Shashi Tharoor]]'s review in ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' concluded: "Churchill said that history would judge him kindly because he intended to write it himself. The self-serving but elegant volumes he authored on the war led the Nobel Committee, unable in all conscience to bestow him an award for peace, to give him, astonishingly, the Nobel Prize for Literature—an unwitting tribute to the fictional qualities inherent in Churchill's self-justifying embellishments. Mukerjee's book depicts a truth more awful than any fiction."<ref>{{cite web|last=Tharoor |first=Shashi |url=http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html |title=Books: Churchill's Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine|work=Time |date=29 November 2010}}</ref> | ||
In December 2020 | In December 2020, historian Zareer Masani gave the book a negative review in conservative magazine ''[[The Critic (British magazine)|The Critic]]'', describing it as "sensationalist" and a "largely conspiracist attempt to pin responsibility on distant Churchill for undoubted mistakes on the ground in Bengal"<ref>{{citation |first=Zareer |last=Masani |url=https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2020/churchill-and-the-genocide-myth/ |title=Churchill and the genocide myth |work=The Critic |date=December 2020}}</ref> | ||
==Publication details== | ==Publication details== | ||