Certainly so.  Another of those "Stalin-was-to-blame" cases concerns the Siege Of Leningrad.  When I was living there in the 1980s, a theory sprang-up amongst quite respectable historians (it was then already possible to critique Stalin, during the "glasnost'" period) that Stalin had purposely under-resourced the defence of the city in WW2,  and had rejected military plans to lift the Siege by the deployment of massive force.  Thus, it was declared, Stalin had intentionally caused the 900-Day Siege, and was therefore responsible for the deaths (both civilian and military) which occurred during the period. (No mention was made of the Third Reich's involvement in the matter, oddly).  But this death-total was then retrospectively added to the tally of deaths for which Stalin was deemed responsible.

There were many vested interests in this matter.  If you had simply died, suffered, or lost your house as the result of enemy action, then it was, well, just tough luck and you got a medal for your fortitude and the right to be in the May 9th Veterans Parade.  But if you came into the category of Victim of Stalinist Repression, you were entitled to some substantial damages - and in some cases, restitution - from the Soviet State.  The second-generation relatives of people living on the Petrogradsky Side were able to reclaim the right to properties from which their relatives had fled.  Perhaps this was right and proper?  But many seemed to end-up in some rather ritzy country properties located behind what had been the German Front Line (drawn-up near to Peterhof - the palace itself was used to billet the Reich's Officer Corps).

As you may know, I'm rarely backward in coming forward to point the finger at Iosif Illiaronovich - but this case was patently ludicrous, and pursued primarily because of personal present advantage.  Nevertheless, the death-toll attributed to Stalin to this day includes the civilian casualties of the Siege Of Leningrad,  and this is clearly - IMHO - a misrepresentation of the facts.

As you say, Ian, it has not always cut both ways.  Count Nikolai Tolstoy waged a long legal battle to get recognition for the "White" patriots who'd fought with the Allies, whom Churchill sent back to Stalin...  knowing full well that they would face a firing squad. The case has been filibustered by the MoD and Tolstoy has lost a small fortune in legal fees...  but no-one will ever admit that Winnie might have blood on his hands

That's the one (in case it didn't open in RT's post) -- I think anyway.

It's interesting that you should mention this. I rather fear that, even in the present era wherein the Briddish Empaa has long since become established as an entity of the past and the areas of pink on mid-20th century maps can now get looked at by some young people who then wonder why they were part-Communist(! - I made that last bit up), the prevailing view of Winston Churchill (especially in Britain itself) seems to remain rather doggedly rose-tinted if not actually dewy-eyed; there is no obscuring that for the most part he was a fine and successful British leader, at least during WWII, but that doesn't make him perfect, let alone even begin to excuse what you just wrote about (although I note your use of the word "apparently" and assume from it that you are not entirely certain of the validity and authenticity of that text). To quite what extent the blame for that famine can be laid specifically at Churchill's door I do not pretend to know, but the rather abject-sounding one-sidedly positive view of him does neither British history, nor those who unquestioningly subscribe to that view nor even Churchill himself any great favours.

I don't think the prevailing view of Churchill among historians is in any way rose tinted, the consensus seeming to be that he was wrong on just about everything throughout his career apart from the sheer bloody mindedness of his wartime leadership. And even in that his attempts to micro manage military matters were often disastrous. But his achievement in managing to hang in there long enough to get the US involved against Hitler still counterbalances anything else in the popular consciousness. How much that achievement can be put down to one man I'm not knowledgeable enough to know, there must have been other capable people around in the war cabinet I would have thought ?

Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty was also largely responsible for the whole Dardanelles/Gallipoli mess in WWI, on the other hand it was also the Admiralty that pushed for the introduction of Tanks (originally officially called HM Landships! The name tanks was invented as a cover, they were supposed to be water tanks being transported to the trenches, to deceive the Germans), they being far more used to armour, and once he realsied what a disaster Gallipoli had been he took a front-line role in the trenches, in an apparent attempt to make some sort of amends.  He was also responsible as I recall for an earlier British adventure in Iraq, using "air policing" as a cheap way to keep the tribes in order.  i.e. the RAF flew around and dropped bombs on anything that looked vaguely threatening.