The American Spectator : Appeasement's Oscar

Text Size

Appeasement’s Oscar

By Daniel Mandel on 3.17.11 @ 6:07AM

Silence is not golden on the story behind The King’s Speech.

The King’s Speech has just walked off with Oscars aplenty, including Best Picture and Best Director for Tom Hooper. Why quibble with the success of a widely-praised piece of entertainment? Even some historians seem satisfied by the film. Ben Macintyre, for example, writing in the London Times, contends that Hooper has “gone to extraordinary lengths to remain faithful… to the historical record.” Were it only true: The King’s Speech tells a significantly false story that sadly — and unnecessarily — sanitizes the record of King George VI.

George VI, the shy, stuttering Duke of York, Bertie as he was known in family circles, succeeded to the British throne in December 1936 because his older brother, Edward VIII, preferred abdication to renouncing his intention to marry the American divorcée, Wallis Simpson. Only a bland hint is given of Edward VIII’s partiality for Hitler and National Socialism, which did not dim with the coming of war, nor even with the Battle of Britain in the second half of 1940 — the attempt to bomb Britain into submission and enable a German invasion. To the contrary, Edward thought the campaign of bombing might cause appeasers to prevail in Whitehall over the unshakable defiance of prime minister Winston Churchill.

Churchill too, strangely enough, is a beneficiary of distortion for, despite being the lion of anti-appeasement, the Cassandra warning vainly about the perils of Hitler, he was also an ardent monarchist whose romantic temperament impelled him to champion Edward and oppose those driving him to abdication. This disastrous misjudgment, a fateful prioritizing of sentiment over policy that foiled Churchill’s comeback from the political wilderness for three vital years, is erased and replaced by a scene in which Churchill bemoans to George Edward’s behavior.

A minor matter in the scheme of this film? Perhaps. Not so the depiction of its protagonist, George himself. To judge by the film, George shared Churchill’s prescience in foreseeing German aggression. This is not the George known to history. While lacking Edward’s fascist predilections, George was nonetheless a thorough-going appeaser who heartily approved of Neville Chamberlain’s policy of propitiating the dictators and cutting off defenseless targets in their path.

George concurred with Chamberlain’s skepticism about trying to draw the United States into European affairs as a counter to the dictators, as foreign secretary Anthony Eden attempted unsuccessfully to do in 1937. When in 1938, Eden’s successor, Lord Halifax, negotiated the agreement with Mussolini that recognized Italy’s conquest of Abyssinia, the King personally wrote to Halifax to applaud the “energy and skill” of his work in procuring the agreement.

Later that year, when Chamberlain flew to Germany to negotiate away Czechoslovakian territorial integrity and, ultimately, independence, George greeted his return with effusive words about his “courage and wisdom” In the short-lived euphoria that followed, he did what no king had done before by inviting Chamberlain, a commoner and politician, to appear at his side on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, completely associating himself with the government’s policy even before the Parliament had voted on it.

In February 1939, George wrote to Halifax regarding the flow of European Jewish refugees to Palestine, saying that he was “glad to think that steps are being taken to prevent these people leaving their country of origin.” George also distrusted Churchill, approved of Chamberlain’s opposition to bringing him into the government, and only reluctantly agreed to Churchill’s succeeding Chamberlain after the fall of Norway in May 1940. George even once told President Franklin Roosevelt that he could consent to Churchill being prime minister only in “very exceptional circumstances.”

George came to change his mind about Churchill and delivered the call to arms that gives the film its title (albeit without the approving throng outside the Palace that appears in the film). All that is missing is the appeaser that he was.

The King’s Speech is primarily a personal story which is under no obligation to rehearse George’s record on appeasement beyond the little attention it devotes to the subject by way of necessary background. But it is under some obligation to provide a background that is truthful, not deliberately falsified. Yet, in the desire to tell a heart-warming story of George’s courageous battle to overcome his impediment, the filmmakers decided that the public could not deal with shades of gray and his actual record is given a royal flush down the memory hole.

Far from having “gone to extraordinary lengths to remain faithful … to the historical record,” The King’s Speech is a case of history made to order — and that is a bad thing. Successful films reach where the scholarly tome does not. In rewriting history, they do a greater disservice to truth and public knowledge than a biased textbook. The King’s Speech’s string of Oscars ensures it will continue to do so.

About the Author

Daniel Mandel is a Fellow in History at Melbourne University and author of H. V. Evatt and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist (Routledge, London, 2004). His blog can be found on the History News Network.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (76) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 3.17.11 @ 7:35AM

When a truthful version of Joseph Kennedys behaviour as Ambassador to Britain is filmed and shown to the world, I will get exercised about this backstory being minimized in the interest of telling the actual story that The Kings Speech was there to tell: of an ordinary man who quailed at the extraordinary demand made upon him, but who stepped up to the plate and did what he had to do, just as common men used to do routinely. I know many people would have rather dragged him through the mud and made the movie about something else entirely, including our President who apparently hates the British, root and branch -- but that movie would not be this movie.

Parenthetically, I thought the depiction of Wallis Simpson was a lot closer to the truth than any I have seen before -- and the unblinking truth that divorce is a bad thing and a divorced woman in those days was a disgrace is something that ought to be emphasized, instead of intimating that changing husbands ought to be no different from changing panties.

Lets see Hollywood make THAT movie.

Bob K.| 3.17.11 @ 7:45AM

Monarchs, whether unelected as Edward and George were, or elected as many of our recent occupants of the White House were, almost all have more concerns than the mundane matters of governing. Most are not particularly well educated, studied or intelligent and many are particularly self centered. If they are "smart" they surround themselves with a court of wise people to advise them. Naturally these advisors do not have the advantage of the hind sight that historians have.

It is fortunate that George ultimately made good choices when the chips were down and it is unlikely that the people who went to see this movie would have been concerned about his previous errors of judgment. In fact, I doubt very much whether the people who made this movie were aware of them or even cared. The prime concern, after all, is entertainment. People who attend movies for enlightenment will end up in darkness.

Albert| 3.17.11 @ 8:05AM

How easy and pleasant it must be to write an historical narrative unencumbered by such tiresome details as facts or evidence. King George was a constitutional monarch, in no position to be either an appeaser or an anti-appeaser. Churchill's personal support for Edward might have led to his political exile, or it might not. There is no clear evidence one way or another. Churchill had broken with the Tory establishment over the question of Indian independence and was also distrusted because he had twice changed parties. There is no clear evidence - as distinct from mythology - that King George preferred Halifax to Churchill at the time of the great crisis of 1940 , and if he did, there was nothing he could have done about it. He was bound by the advice of the Prime Miniser of the day - Chamberlain - to accept the recommendation to appoint Churchill. He could not possibly have refused to consent and it would not even have occurred to him to do so. For that matter, the evidence that Edward VIII was pro-Nazi is mighty tenuous. He was serving in the British Army in France when the Germans attacked in 1940. Had he been pro-Nazi the obvious course would have been for him to let himself be captured, to be kept "On icc" if Hitler needed a puppet king. Instead he escaped.

Jacobite| 3.17.11 @ 4:58PM

If the English had listened to Churchill, we wouldn't be having our current problems with Pakistan (and it's been nothing but problems since 1947). No non-Anglophone former colony of Britain has turned out better than it would have been under British rule. India is close, and Hong Kong is even today, but let's see how living under Chinese rule turns out. Jewish immigration to the British Mandate was seen to be a source of trouble, and it was. After all, who is a king supposed to be looking out for, if not his own people, first and foremeost. The Jews had been expelled from England in the 11th or 12th century and not allowed to return until 1655. As the Jewish terrs attacking the Brits in Palestine knew well, Englishmen are not Jews, and Jews are not Englishmen.

Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 5:35PM

I dunno...the Jews tossed up a pretty good Prime Minister for the UK, I recall. But Menny and the Jets were not Englishmen.

Bob K.| 3.17.11 @ 5:56PM

I believe he was raised Anglican and he was of Italian heritage also. And he was a Conservative with a big C! I love his comment about journalists: "One day they are blackening your character and the next day they are blackening your boots!"

Christopher Holland| 3.17.11 @ 8:15PM

Gladstone was the leader of the Liberal Party and Disraeli would torment him unmecifully - he thought Gladstone was a pompous, self righteous windbag and a fool. It was said that Disraeli treated him like a telescope- he would take Gladstone out of his box, unfold him, look right through him and when he was finished he would fold him up and put him back in his box.

darcy| 3.18.11 @ 12:18AM

"For that matter, the evidence that Edward VIII was pro-Nazi is mighty tenuous." Whatever else I may or may not know of what you write, this quote is most certainly in error. Perhaps you haven't seen the photographs of Hitler with Edward and his Ms. Simpson as I have. It is known to anyone with even a mild interest in 1930's history that Edward VIII was an advocate of the German Chancellor. See Wikipedia relating to the "private accusations" of Edwards' Nazi sympathies.

Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 5:36PM

Not that bloody tenuous. Edward spent most of the war in Bermuda, I believe.

Christopher Holland| 3.17.11 @ 7:38PM

Edward was appointed the Governor of Bermuda, but he got his nose out of joint because his wife was not referred to as Her Royal Highness, and he spent most of the war, and the rest of his life, sulking in New York. Nobody noticed his absence.

Bob K.| 3.18.11 @ 1:41AM

They didn't want him in England or France. Bermuda was a high rent Elba.

CalMark| 3.18.11 @ 5:09PM

There is a famous picture of the Duke of Windsor and his wife shaking hands, bowing and beaming--not so much diplomacy as adulation--with Hitler.

Or is somebody going to argue that we "misinterpret," or even that the picture was doctored?

The Bishop| 3.17.11 @ 8:36AM

The real question that neither history nor cinema will answer is: What would King George's NCAA bracket picks have been?

Peppermint Tea| 3.17.11 @ 9:10AM

No, the real question is what was the King's golf handicap.

blackwatch| 3.18.11 @ 1:09AM

Perhaps Queen Elizabeth can put those rumors of the King George's Kenyan birth to rest after all these years....

albert constantine jr.| 3.17.11 @ 9:20AM

I seem to recall reading that the husband and consort of Queen Victoria, Prince Albert, was of German royal lineage, did not speak English, and conversed primarily with his wife and family in German. While the troubles of 1914-1918 might have eroded the affinity towards things Teutonic amongst the next generations of royals, I've often thought that perhaps Edward VIII's reported German sympathies (and maybe George VI's poor oral communication skills) might have had some roots there.

John K| 3.17.11 @ 11:26AM

Prince Albert was from Germany (though it did not exist in his lifetime), but he spoke English, and was a great champion of British industry and enterprise.

Purple Lips| 3.17.11 @ 3:24PM

Prince Albert spent most of his time in the can.

Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 5:29PM

Let him out!

mbd| 3.17.11 @ 12:51PM

The Royal Family's Hanoverian roots precede Prince Albert by more than a century.

Christopher Holland| 3.17.11 @ 7:43PM

George I couldn't speak English when he came to the throne and he didn't much like the country - he spent as much time in Hanover as he could. The office of Prime Minister came about because of the language problem- the king couldn't address his ministers directly, he had to have somebody to do that for him, and the minister he chose became the prime minister.

Gr0w1er| 3.17.11 @ 9:37AM

When viewing ANYTHING from Hollywood that purports to be a "true story" or "based on a true story", it is necessary to boil things down to the 'bone': yes, there was a George VI, and he did have a stutter. After that Hollywood will (almost) always embellish/alter the truth. Remember what what was done to the William Wallace story as it related to the Scottish wars for independence. Hilarious!

Seek| 3.17.11 @ 6:43PM

I believe this is a British film, not a Hollywood one. But, hey, what's the difference? When there is a movie to vilify, it's automatically Hollywood, right?

blackwatch| 3.18.11 @ 1:11AM

yeah not enough singing and line dancing to be a "Bollywood" musical.

ConantheContrarian| 3.17.11 @ 10:22AM

I know that the Nazis were the bad guys. But I have a question. If the UK and France went to war against Germany because Germany attacked Poland, why didn't they go to war against the USSR as well? If I remember correctly, Deutschland and Russia split the country between them. All this kvetching about appeasers and appeasement is all nonsense. If the UK and France had stayed out of it, Hitler and Stalin would have worn themselves out fighting each other.

John K| 3.17.11 @ 11:29AM

A good point. The UK and France acually did come close to war with the USSR over the invasion of Finland. I suppose that being at war with Germany did mean that there was less desire to start another war with the USSR, but you are quite right, until Barbarossa, the USSR was a good friend of Germany, and supplied the Nazis with wheat, oil and all sorts of raw materials.

Franco| 3.17.11 @ 1:04PM

I've heard this theory and it lacks any sense. Hitler occupied Western Europe as part of his ulrimate plan for destroying the Soviet Union--in order for his rear to be secure when the invasion of the USSR occured, correctly fearful as he was of a war on two fronts.

ConantheContrarian| 3.17.11 @ 1:27PM

Hitler went to war with France and the UK because they declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland. Plain and simple. Churchill hated the Germans more than he hated the Russians. Frankly, I don't know if he hated the Russians, but we do know that the Russians were busy recruiting among the English intelligentsia who would have been sympathetic to Marxism and the Russians. And so, All these thing mitigated against going to war against the USSR. Imagine this: No western Euro country going to war against Germany. Germany and USSR at a bloody stalemate. The UK prosperous and London intact; France undisturbed and Paris intact (oops, nevermind. Was there even a broken window?). You get the picture.

RVN| 3.17.11 @ 7:43PM

Churchill was pretty staunchly anti-communist which was why he was, very early on, sympathetic to Hitler seeing him as a barrier against Stalinist expansion. However, Churchill became anti-Nazi much earlier than most people, partly because he sincerely came to hate Nazism but also as a means to set himself apart from other British politicians. In fact, in 1941, when a good portion of Britain thought it best to let Stalin and Hitler beat each other to a pulp, Churchill shocked a lot of people (b/c of his traditional anti-communism) by advocating support for Stalin. It gave rise to one of those quintessential Churchillian comments when asked why he wanted to support Stalin: "If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least make a passing comment about the devil in the House of Commons."

Roadrage| 3.17.11 @ 6:25PM

Moves by Britain and France to aid the Finns via Norwegian ports while denying Swedish iron ore to the Germans helped bring on the German invasion of Norway. The US sold the Finns fighter aircraft - Brewster Buffalos.

Before the Nazi-Soviet Pact, aristocrats such as Halifax and some of the royals may have seen Nazis as antibodies dealing with a greater menace: The Bolsheviks who had killed Russia's rulers and wiped out aristocratic privilege - and who Hitler saw as his ideological enemies and rivals for the destiny of Europe, not the decadent democracies of the West.

The two strains of anti-semitism overlapped, but British aristocrats, like many others, did not take the Nazis at their word, or chose to listen to only the words that spared them agonizing choices. The Nazis' updated version of anti-semitism led them down the path of nihilism and mass murder; the British upper crust practiced a more can't-have-that-sort-in-the-club variety, aggravated perhaps in the 30s by some pushiness on the question of Jewish immigration to British-mandate Palestine and other refugee issues.

Yes, story trumps accuracy. Perhaps, knowing the ending as we do, where the Nazis are bad guys, losers, whackos, and monsters all rolled in to one, we will pass over a depiction of a morally-nuanced era and a compromised class in favor of an inspirational story with a feel-good ending. (The film made from Kazuo Ishiguro's Remains of the Day uses these murky currents as background.) That said, I would have to call The King's Speech a very good movie.

Thanks for mentioning Braveheart, where Wallace at the end of the Battle of Stirling, in blue face paint and with nary a bridge or castle in sight, channels Rocky Balboa. Meanwhile, Edward I is tossing his heir's effete friend out the window...

Christopher Holland| 3.17.11 @ 7:58PM

Public attitudes change in minutes on some things. I remember reading an autobigraphy of one of FDR's assistants (Sherrod Brown, I think), and he went to dinner at the White House and had to walk past pickets carrying signs opposing war with Germany. During the meal the news came through that Germany had invaded Russia. When he left the White House to go home the pickets had all gone and their signs were lying on the pavement.

Brian B| 3.17.11 @ 12:01PM

--If the UK and France had stayed out of it, Hitler and Stalin would have worn themselves out fighting each other.--

I guess the UK and France had a severe shortage of clairvoyance that the two totalitarian allies devouring Poland and the rest of Eastern and Central Europe would spend the next several years fighting each other rather than next turning to devour them.

ConantheContrarian| 3.17.11 @ 2:35PM

Clairvoyance had nothing to do with it. What they had was a severe shortage of "Mind my own business." How about they were a bunch of pansy socialists who hated national socialists, and just had to go to war to protect Poland from . . . what? Germany? the USSR? They sure didn't fight the USSR. It boiled dow to how much they hated the Germans as National Socialists more than they hated the Russians as Communists. Poland didn't fare to well in the end, did it? Where were France and the UK in 1946? Why didn't they help Poland then? What about the Baltic states? Churchill and Roosevelt took a giant dump on eastern Europe, and Churchill made himself out to be a courageous statesman. All this "Not minding our own business" made me against Gulf War I, which was waged to save Kuwait. And Gulf War II, which was waged to spank Saddam. I don't care about Kuwait. Mind my own business.

Sean| 3.17.11 @ 5:48PM

Churchill the appeaser had no problem letting the commies take over eastern European countries. After WWII he gave back to the Soviets the white Russians so they could be executed.

RVN| 3.17.11 @ 7:45PM

I agree that Churchill shares a great deal of guilt for the White Russians (among others). But, also keep in mind that by 1944 & 1945, it was FDR & the US which were really calling the diplomatic tune. And, it was Churchill who sent the British army into Greece to fight the communists there. And, after, June (?), 1945, Churchill was largely irrelevant in post-war Europe.

John K| 3.17.11 @ 7:54PM

Roosevelt's appeasement of Stalin at Yalta drove Churchill mad, he knew that unless the US and UK stood up to him, that Poland would end up as a Soviet colony. Problem was, FDR hated British imperialism, and was under the influence of Soviet dupes such as Harry Dexter White, as well as being very sick. None of that was Churchill's fault.

Christopher Holland| 3.17.11 @ 8:03PM

Churchill's account of this time clearly states that he knew that FDR was dieing and that his letters to Churchill were being written by somebody else. Churchill was pretty much powerless, there was little that he could do. Like Abraham Lincoln when he got the news of the battle of Antietam, he was too old to cry and it hurt too much to laugh.

RVN| 3.17.11 @ 8:07PM

I think we're in general agreement on this. You're definitely right on the advice FDR was getting. It continued under Truman for the first 6 months or so. Just before Truman met with Stalin the first time, an adviser said to him: "Please be nice to Stalin, I think his feelings are hurt." Christopher Holland is also right. What, exactly, could the western Allies do in 1945?
On the other hand, I believe FDR was right to confront Churchill on the issue of imperialism. The way the Labour Party handled decolonization was tragically inept, but confronting the abuses of imperialism was right.

Christopher Holland| 3.17.11 @ 8:29PM

Churchill did have good reasons to want to maintain the British empire - his comments about India in the 1930s, which caused him to break with the Conservative Party, had a lot going for them. He was suspicious of Gandhi (Gandhi gets treated very favourably in history, his defects get almost no scrutiny), he thought that the Indian princes would be crushed if the British left (they were) and Britain owed them the same loyalty the princes had given Britain, and there would be war between the hindus and the moslems (that turned out to be true, too). On balance, Britain had to leave India, they could not stay, but Churchill's views stand up quite well despite that. Being right, unfortunately does not mean the same thing as doing the right thing.

Sean| 3.18.11 @ 1:13AM

Patton refused to hand over the anticommunists to the soviets, but in the British sector they were rounded up by force and sent over. So this had nothing to do with FDR

John K| 3.18.11 @ 1:16PM

The "anticommunists" were Cossacks who had fought for the Germans. There was not a lot of sympathy for them in 1945, which is not to excuse the fact that the Soviets executed them with their usual ruthless efficiency.

Christopher Holland| 3.17.11 @ 7:50PM

Stalin had the same idea, but from the other side. He thought he could buy time with the Ribbentropp-Molotov pact that divided up Poland, and then let the Germans, British and French fight it out and weaken each other. By the time it would be over, Russia would be strong enough to take on the Germans by themselves.

Unfortunately for Stalin, it didn't go to plan and Germany defeated France in 1940 and it looked over for Britain. Khruschev said that Stalin cursed like a taxi driver when he heard about the collapse of France and said that Hitler was now going to kick their fucking heads in.

Paul Windels| 3.17.11 @ 10:32AM

Prof. Mandel is absolutely correct. It is very bad to distort history, since then whatever lesson there is to be learned from history is lost and any attempt to derive a moral from falsified history is by definition a fraud.

I'd add a few thoughts: first, GVI was in synch is with the British public, who had suffered dreadfully during WWI (about twice the deaths the US sustained in WWII). Churchill was widely perceived (fairly or not) as being cavalier about spending other peoples' lives on his own seemingly harebrained schemes, such as the Dardanelles. To families that had lost a son or two during the war (and one that many thought pointless), that was a grudge that was not easily forgiven.

Second, those close to EVIII did not exactly welcome Churchill's support. They suspected him as an opportunist who was playing the contrarian game. And he was NEVER part of EVIII's social set.

Last, the portrayal of Churchill personally makes him appear like a sour old curmudgeon. In fact, Churchill in person was utterly charming and very funny -- even his political enemies enjoyed his company.

John Carnal| 3.17.11 @ 10:50AM

So Mr. Mandel I see you quibble for a living.

Smirking Weasel| 3.17.11 @ 11:09AM

'Appeasement'=chickenhawk whining about others not pissing away third parties lives and money on questionable-to-useless activities.
And if George was skeptical about drawing America into conflicts in other parts of the world, then Americans owe him a great deal of respect. His atttitude on emigration, while not directly comparable to our own problems of invasion from the south, at least recognized that having trouble in one's native land does not give one license to run across borders and take up residence in the foreign country of one's choosing.

Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 1:53PM

I dunno, Weasel...Hitler may have been someone worth opposing. Certainly the infant murdering child rapists that we currently have concerns with are just dandy folks and it's all "chickenhawkish" to oppose them. Sharia would be a great thing to have here, and because of guys like you, we may have it.

ConantheContrarian| 3.17.11 @ 2:41PM

Where do we oppose Sharia law? We wouldn't have it if we didn't import Muslims into this country. No Muslims, no sharia law. Why oppose it in some far away place? In some far away place, they have had Sharia law for 1300 years. And now we should care?

Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 5:33PM

Dear Conan:

check population reproduction figures. Use the CIA Factbook and the UN Demographic section. Especially note the commentary in the UN section (which is far to the Left and not pro-American, but nonetheless has truth to it).

As Robert Heinlein once said, "all wars are caused by population pressures." You seem like a bright guy. I let you do the extrapolation. Yes, we should care.

Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 1:57PM

The emigration, incidentally, involved Jews being threatened with mass murder not being allowed to leave their soon to be graveyards, Smirking Weasel. Given the Jewish proclivity to win Nobel Prizes, we're talking maybe 40 Nobelists burned in the ovens. (This is no exaggeration---pictures exist of Elie Weisel in Buchenwald in his prisoner attire. Given the breakdown, that's maybe 10 Medicine Nobelists and 10 chem/physics Nobelists. ) You may be a Weasel, but I'm a Wolverine, pal.

mzk1| 3.17.11 @ 1:32PM

Given that Obama's foreign policy is a copy of Chaimberlain's, I would think this is rather significant.

Christopher Holland| 3.17.11 @ 8:09PM

This is unfair to Chamberlain, who, for all his faults, did recognise that his policy turned out to be a disaster. Chamberlain stayed on as leader of the Conservative Party and a member of the War Cabinet, he was loyal to Churchill in that role and he agreed with him that the only possible end of the war was through the unconditional surrender of Germany. That can not be said of Obama, he is too arrogant to admit a mistake and so incompetent that he will have many to admit too.

RVN| 3.17.11 @ 9:52PM

I echo Christopher Holland's point. And, to be even a little more conciliatory to Chamberlain, in large part his decision-making process was driven by a determination to prevent German bombers levelling British cities. Sadly, he got that anyway. In large part, Chamberlain followed the prescription that others on these posts suggest: let thugs & dictators take out others, we'll mind our own business. Not saying that's wrong - or right but that's what it was. I'm no fan of Chamberlain & when I teach the period, I don't present him as a hero but my views of him have modified in recent years. There's an excellent book called "Burying Ceasar" on the Churchill-Chamberlain rivalry pre-WWII. I'm sorry but I can't recall the author right now.

CalMark| 3.17.11 @ 2:26PM

The official biographer of the Queen Mother, wife of George VI, ties himself into a knot trying to explain away, and not quite succeeding, the strong pro-appeasement sentiment at Buckingham Palace. As long as any of them were alive, it rightly remained a source of great embarassment for the British.

Misrepresenting historical facts is the tool of tyrants, like Hitler, Stalin, and Orwell's faceless, nameless dictators in "1984." Distortion is also the means whereby quislings, whether weak-minded or ruthless, each in their own way subvert the future.

Sir Loin of Beef| 3.17.11 @ 3:30PM

It matters not how we read history, as the UK will be Muslim in 2 generations, probably less.

CalMark| 3.17.11 @ 4:32PM

"History is bunk," you say? That's what Henry Ford said, too.

He's remembered for building cars, but also his (shall we say it charitably) highly idiosyncratic socio-political views.

Unless you're one heck of an entrepreneur to counterbalance this, are you sure you want to be associated with the dark side of Mr. Ford?

Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 5:30PM

2030 is supposed to be the final tipping point. My kids are 7, and by the time they would really enjoy the British Museum (age 14 or so), I fear it will be too late to visit.

Al Adab| 3.17.11 @ 4:06PM

We must never allow the inconvienient truth that war may be at times the only viable option. The Left could never bring itself to admit that.

Michael Vaughan| 3.17.11 @ 9:20PM

Forget the nitpicking - it was a film, not a documentary. I notice the author is the biographer of the infamous Dr Evatt who failed to win three successive elections in Australia. He blamed the first defeat on commie-hating Catholics, the old Anglo-Saxon disease, and they made sure Menzies remained as PM and the USA had a staunch ally during the worst part of the Cold War. Good on you, doc!

Dazed and confused| 3.17.11 @ 10:57PM

Explain to me again why, in a film about George's stuttering, it matters one tiny little bit what Edward's politics were?

Dee See| 3.17.11 @ 11:08PM

----SO telling this footnote from the era of
Globalist appeasement and genocide ---

MEANWHILE last year Hollywood couldn't get it together to offer
a single picture remembering the awesomely
significant 60th Anniversary of the 'RED China realist' -----KOREAN WAR...

Seek| 3.18.11 @ 1:20PM

Why don't you "get it together" and a make picture? In any event, to tide you over there is Peter Weir's recently-released epic movie about a true-to-life escape from a Soviet Gulag, "The Way Home." I suppose you didn't catch that one.

general summerall| 3.18.11 @ 12:16AM

I think it was in Rose's bio of George V that I read a few years ago it was mentioned that George had been so so torn up by what had gone on in WWI that in the 30s, when he was in his last years he was declaring that if there was ever another world war he would have to agree to he would go down to Trafalgar Square and wave a red flag.

Dee See| 3.18.11 @ 1:05AM

---The World War II era has been done and exploited to death and is the stalest of moral alibis
for our current Globalist-EUGENICS 'Mutiny from above'.

Brian Richard Allen | 3.18.11 @ 5:07AM

Appleby says that

.... When a truthful version of Joe Kennedy's behaviour as Ambassador to Britain is filmed and shown to the world, Appleby will become exercised ....

Or one telling the Truth about the fascistic traitor, Roosevelt, the chickens from whose relationship with his "Uncle Joe," from his so richly Soviet-agent-larded "administration," from his activist-stacked fiat "courts" and from his monstrously treasonous Ponzi scams, are only now truly coming home to roost.

Brian Richard Allen | 3.18.11 @ 5:25AM

Al Adab says that

.... We must never allow the inconvienient truth that war may be at times the only viable option. The Left could never bring itself to admit that ...

And nor yet could any supporter of once great Britain nor of any other of the Europeons' Neo-Soviet's member states ever notice, let alone acknowledge, that, come 1939, all of Europe was already effectively dead or in terminal decline and would, but for the Marshall Plan that created, built and for a time managed a little bit of America in Europe (and in Japan) have long ago followed the British electorate's most closely representative "leader," Chamberlain -- and Mr Eddy Eight and Mr George Six into History's Dustbin!

We never have been, are not and, thank God, never will be Europeons and it's way past time we told our feral gummint-- and especially the creepy buggers at State -- to bring home all our Troops -- and to stop trying.

Dee See| 3.19.11 @ 5:11AM

---AHA!

Just yesterday comes across in a radio news
item that Hollywood has been caught red handed
not only balking ANY projects dealing with the
ever unfolding RED Chinese Halocaust
--BUT have been editing ALLLL Hollywood
to 'PLEASE' Beijing for decades now!

---"The list is alive------!"

YEAH, the list of perpetrators!

WOW------------------------------------------------------

Roy| 3.19.11 @ 9:38PM

I dunno if people think appeasement is such a bad thing, any more. British losses in WWI utterly dwarf US losses in Iraq, yet those were enough to cause huge masses of conservative commentators to cave to Code Pink. Won't even discuss liberals...

Seems to me our future holds more Chamberlains than Churchills.

SDM| 3.20.11 @ 1:05AM

It is unforntunate that the truth was distorted.

However, King George and Chamberlain were not bad people. They were trying to avoid WWII which indeed was even more horrible than feared before the war. Churchill was correct because Hitler was a murderous fanatic that could not be appeased. It is a extremely difficult decision to come to the conclusion that war is necessary.

general summerall| 3.20.11 @ 3:51AM

Wars have been fought through the centuries over things like Jenkin's ear, or the French sending Henry V a sack of tennis balls. A few years ago a history prof had a book on pigs as a cause of war through history. The social darwinists thought war would be a good way to man-up the kids in society and make them "iron youths." Shakespeare had a whole scene in Hamlet with H meeting a guy going to fight for a useless piece of ground over which warriors all over Europe were rushing to defend it or attack it because that's where the action was. Girls and gold were accepted reasons to go fight somebody.

weddingdress | 7.12.11 @ 5:23AM

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:51PM

is good

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator