In the USA it was the conservative republicans that opposed it.
Sanger had other strong negatives in her past, including speaking before KKK affiliated groups.
Real history is sometimes inconvenient, depending on your political point of view.
It was a movement independent of politics, and especially popular in pre-war USA on both sides of the political divide.
"In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal."
"Thousands were sent to British run concentration camps during the Boer wars. Churchill summed up his time in South Africa by saying “it was great fun galloping about”."
Facts can be inconvenient sometimes.
You mean the British administration resorted to scorched earth denial policies fearing the Japanese advance. It was literally Raj policy.
> Bengal was suffering an unprecedented series of natural disasters.
And the British response to the natural disasters was continuing to redirect supplies to military and refusing to allow shipping of humanitarian aid. Churchill's response to news of the famine was ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet.
> Facts can be inconvenient sometimes.
Like the fact that India repeatedly suffered famines under British rule but there hasn't been a famine since Independence?
This played a major role on Churchill's intuition and ascend, and failed miserably when he diverted resources to fight local political parties thus not predicting the start date of two world wars.
After the wars had started, he did divert resources to handle things succesfully.
TLDR: Churchill was his secret services. Succesful when not adapted to his own personal biases
So, nothing about the racist, imperialist side? Yet another hagiography?
> Yet Mr Roberts does not gloss over the many examples of terrible judgment that littered Churchill’s career before (and even after) becoming prime minister, errors which created a widespread perception that, while brilliant, energetic and matchlessly eloquent, he was also unreliable, excessively passionate, even dangerous. The charge sheet is long: his opposition to votes for women (later regretted); as First Lord of the Admiralty during the first world war, pressing on with the Dardanelles operation long after it should have been abandoned; sending the brutal Black and Tans into Ireland as war secretary; re-joining the Gold Standard as chancellor of the exchequer in the 1920s; backing the awful Edward VIII during the abdication crisis (also later regretted); vainly resisting Indian self-government (Churchill held conventional Victorian views about the superiority and obligations of the “white races” that he never truly recanted). And so on.
So I'd say yes, it does address it.
By analogy consider the contemporaneous movie The Wizard of Oz (1939). It's enjoyable and arguably morally-improving to watch. We are the better for it. Yet a great deal of immorality existed behind the scenes:
We dont need lies about history, even when that lie is by omitting ugly stuff about people we want to see as heroes. Such framing leads to dangerous worldview and dangerous implications about current times too. It makes us less capable to deal with actual real world complexity. Even heroes should be questioned and mythical heroes are exactly that - myths.
We need truth about historical personalities, not hero worship.