It’s unfair of Helen Cammock to state that Churchill ‘wilfully’ starved anyone, as from what you have described he couldn’t realistically have made different choices: to have taken ships away from the planned military actions would have ultimately risked even more lives. I don’t agree with her choice of words, but I do think it’s a necessary part of the ‘woke’ pendulum swing to draw attention to the disenfranchised and often forgotten casualties of what was going on during the war. I for one wasn’t actually aware of the famine until her comments. Military action is much sexier, and humanitarian collateral occurrences not so widely written about. She shouldn’t lay the blame on Churchill though, which I guess is the whole point.