February 27, 2011, - 6:56 pm

The King’s Speech, Colin Firth, the Nazis, the Jews & Israel

By Debbie Schlussel


In just a few minutes, the insipid, plodding red carpet walk will begin for tonight’s Academy Awards.  The Oscars’ glorified sidewalk will be chock full of outrageously paid proud high school graduates (and some high school drop-outs).  And the expected, much prognosticated winner of the night is expected to be “The King’s Speech,” a move I chose as 2010’s best (check out my Top Ten Movies of 2010 list), and for which I voted in most categories as a voting member of the Detroit Film Critics Society.  But I’m having a little remorse, based on the comments of readers, others, and the information I’ve learned since then, doing my own research. And my remorse includes Colin Firth’s upcoming anti-Israel propaganda project. More on that later.

Wallis Simpson, Edward VIII & Adolf Hitler


First, there’s what others–including many of  you, my friends and readers–pointed out.   The movie is the story of King George VI of England a/k/a “Bertie” and his relationship with a commoner speech therapist who helps the King overcome his stutter to deliver an important speech, rallying his country around the Allies and against the Nazis in World War II.

But the movie whitewashes this King George’s brother,  King Edward VIII–who abdicates the throne because of his marriage to divorcee and well-known slut Wallis Simpson–and his Nazi sympathies.  That’s an important historical point, far more important than the much pointed to liberties the movie takes vis-a-vis Kind George VI’s relationship with Winston Churchill.  In fact, there is no mention of Ms. Simpson’s sexual affair with German Ambassador to Britain, Joachim von Ribbentrop. The FBI reported that she was passing secret information obtained from her hubby to the Nazi government.

To skip over this is to do much more than a white lie. It is to create utter fiction and do a disservice to the many minds of mush who will take this move as historical truth. They always do. And, frankly, the movie would have been an even stronger contrast between the King brothers, had the movie bothered to briefly point this out. I feel ripped off that it did not.  Read more on this from Spartacus Educational.

Then, there’s the point about King George VI’s own behavior toward the Jewish people in Israel, then known as “Palestine” (though almost all of the Palestinians then were Jews, not these Arab Muslim interlopers who’ve usurped the name, today). Obviously, that part of history is neither a subject nor a part of the movie, nor should it be. But that doesn’t mean we can’t take it into account when assessing whether or not King George VI was really a hero–really a man concerned with courage and doing the right thing–as the movie ultimately shows him, in the end.

It was under George VI that Jews–including at least a ship of them trying to escape the Holocaust and being sent back to their certain deaths in Nazi Europe–were kept out of Palestine, while the Arab Muslims were allowed in and were heavily favored by the Brits.  And even after the full horrors of the Holocaust and the death camps were known, the Brits under this King had no problem brutally and consistently turning away Jews trying to avoid this and, later, trying to move on from overcrowded displaced persons camps in Europe. That included the ship, Exodus, whose Holocaust survivor passengers were sent back to Germany via France. Helen Thomas would have loved it.

Still, it was better that the King rally his country against the Nazis than not, unlike his King brother. But we would be remiss if we didn’t remember what this King and Winston Churchill and his Parliament did. From Simple to Remember – Judaism Online:

Abba Eban, who was then the Jewish liaison to a special UN committee—called Special Committee On Palestine or UNSCOP—persuaded four UN representatives to go to Haifa to witness the brutality of the British against the Jews.

Historian Martin Gilbert includes Eban’s account of what happened there in Israel: A History (p. 145):

[In Haifa] the four members watched a “gruesome operation.” The Jewish refugees had decided not to accept banishment with docility. If anyone had wanted to know what Churchill meant by a “squalid war,” he would have found out by watching British soldier using rifle butts, hose pipes and tear gas against the survivors of the death camps. Men, women and children were forcibly taken off to prison ships, locked in cages below decks and set out of Palestine waters.

When the four members of UNSCOP came back to Jerusalem, Eban recalled, “they were pale with shock. I could see that they were pre-occupied with one point alone: if this was the only way that the British Mandate could continue, it would be better not to continue it at all.’”

And, of course, when the Arab Muslim nations went to war against Israel and tried to invade, the Brits not only did nothing to stop them; by many accounts they tried to help them against the Jews.

True, the King was little more than a figurehead, as he points out in some of his lines in the movie, and Churchill was really running the show. But, as is also the point of the movie, his speeches were influential and important. And he could have used the bully pulpit against what his government perpetrated and sanctioned in Palestine. But he did not. And today, his progeny, especially grandson, Prince Charles, have their lips permanently affixed to the rears of the Islamic world against the West and Israel.

And finally, there is Colin Firth–the actor who plays King George VI and who is up for an Oscar for Best Actor, tonight. He was excellent in his performance. But I’m no longer rooting for him to win because of what he’s doing next. To add insult to injury regarding the British actions toward the Jews in pre-Israel Palestine, his latest project, “The Promised Land,” is a “thriller” which paints the Brits as heroes and the Jews as terrorists.  It focuses on the “Stern Gang” freedom fighters, who put an end to British brutality against the Jews.  But that’s not the way leftist revisionists see it or the way this movie does.  Because, hey, why not do films portraying Jews as terrorists, since the real modern terrorists–Arab Muslims–are off-limits due to the rules of political correctness, right?  Here’s the synopsis of the film:

A police-thriller set in Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem during the British Mandate era in Palestine. It tells the gripping true story of two British police officers Thomas Wilkin, and Geoffrey Morton and their battle to bring to an end the campaign of bombings and assassinations by the extreme right-wing Jewish underground led by the charismatic poet, Avraham Stern. The film culminates when the two policemen track Stern down to his apartment hide-out in Tel Aviv on Mizrachi Street in 1942.

Yes, the “gripping true story,” which is Hollywood code for: our propaganda and lies distorting the true story. By starring in this, Colin Firth is part of those lies and distortions.

The story of how Israel was reborn into the modern Jewish state is a glorious one. But Colin Firth and his ilk want to present you a different one that just ain’t the truth.

Just the way King George VI–stutter or not–and Sir Winston Churchill would have told it.

Well, tonight, I guess I’ll just be cheering on the “True Grit” (read my review), a truly American story.

**** UPDATE: Reader/writer Joel has a different take:

He was not prime minister during the “squalid war,” and in fact opposed it, noting that it was covering Britain in “blood and shame.”

King Bertie was a fan of Neville Chamberlain, and was the first to receive him when he returned from Munich.

Alas, historical movies are not history; they’re “based on” history. I appreciate that heroes have to be made more heroic and villains more villainized in order for a movie to get made. All things considered, I’m grateful that the movie, though it alters history, returns us to the days of extolling virtuous behavior. Unlike, say, Social Network, which lionized solipsism. Consider that if the movie portrayed Bertie as he really was: (a) the movie wouldn’t have been made, and (b) the audience’s affection for him, and its rooting interest in his success, would have been vitiated. The movie succeeded in making us care for a man with an affliction who had to overcome it in order to help rally his nation against an immense evil. Because it did that so well, and because it was been so successful, we can now reasonably expect more movies that celebrate virtue–movies that would’ve stood near-zero chance–to get made. It has made the studios realize that adults love mature subjects. That’s something to cheer, distorted history or not.

That’s true. But it’s always troubling that too many of these same mature adults believe what’s in these movies as “the gospel,” and it can distort our view of history.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

65 Responses

The British have been a-holes for centuries. World-class exploiters who play peoples against each other and readily had scapegoats available should anyone get wise to their methods. That they stood against the Nazis…who cares? Seriously, the USSR beat the Germans. All Britain did was save face for a few years and supply the enemy of their enemy until the U.S.A. got involved, FDR graciously choosing to put emphasis on the European conflict (Americans cared far, far more about the Pacific War) and generously letting the U.K. seem like an equal partner. At war’s end, the British green-stamped the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Which is not surprising, because if the Brits were hopeless failures against the Germany army (which they’d blame blame on the French, of course), there’s no way they could stand up to Stalin.

Two nations won World War 2, the USA and USSR. The others were losers and quite, franky, still are losers.

Bury Old England on February 27, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    That they stood against the Nazis…who cares?

    I care. They may have been stupid and anti-Semitic and let chance after chance to stamp on Hitler, may his name be erased, like the cockroach he was, go by. But when push came to shove, they held out during the Blitz, until the United States entered the war. It was because Britain didn’t surrender, even when London was being pounded into rubble, night after night, that the U.S. had a place to attack Nazi-occupied Europe FROM.

    Miranda Rose Smith on February 28, 2011 at 7:13 am

      The Brits opposed and fought against Hitler thanks to one man: Churchill. The royal family were as “German” then (Battenbergs of Saxen-Coburg-Gotha, if you know what I mean) as they are now. Windsor is a fabricated name to hide their German origins.
      As for the Brits themselves, as said: they were against Hitler just because Churchill said so. If they’d have had a Prime Minister with different “leanings”, they’d no doubt have followed him without thinking twice.
      Now, in “Palestine” (why do you think they used the name invented by the Roman occupiers if not to obliterate the fact that Judea belongs to the Judeans aka Jews?) the British Mandate was full of anti-Jewish hatred from start to finish.
      They knew perfectly well that the nazis with the help of their friend, the “great” Arab leader from “Palestine”, Al Husseini, were murdering all the millions of European Jews they could lay their hands on.
      And still, the Brits refused to open the gates so they could be saved.
      And they bombed into submission the rotten little ships in which survivors of the most foul genocide in history tried to reach the said homeland, and if they didn’t drown in the Mediterranean in the process then they were lucky to be put in British concentration camps in Cyprus for a couple of years.
      So, seriously, why shouldn’t Israel make a film full of historical fact, about the bloody Brits and their criminal rule in “Palestine”??
      Or a film about the murderer who murdered with impunity, Geoffry Morton, the Brish CID officer who murdered a detained and handcuffed prisoner named Yair hy”d ??

      Estela Bat Israel on March 27, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Seriously, the USSR beat the Germans.

    Stalin, may his name be erased, at first collaborated with Hitler, may his name be erased. Remember the Nazi-Soviet Pact? When Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, he was, at first, very successful, because Stalin had purged the Russian army so thoroughly. The British and Americans and Free French beat the Germans.

    Miranda Rose Smith on February 28, 2011 at 7:17 am

What a disppointment! The true story has disappeared thanks to lefty propagandists who glorfy Moslem terrorist who sided with the Nazis during WWII. Shame on Firth.

AliceL. on February 27, 2011 at 9:29 pm

Also, see the two recent essays by Christopher Hitchens on this subject in Slate.

As Ridley Scott would say, they are making a movie, not a documentary.

Not a bad movie, certainly, but WAY overrated.

JJ: Sorry, but we don’t generally recommend uber-liberal, lying Slate and self-hating, anti-Israel Jew Christopher Hitchens on this site. DS

Jerry Jones on February 27, 2011 at 9:40 pm

    I do have to correct Debbie. Hitchens isn’t a Jew but an atheist. I can’t stand his rejection of G-d any more than I can stand his contempt for Israel.

    NormanF on February 28, 2011 at 11:32 am

Oh, was the oscar thing this weekend? Gee I must have missed it. Just as I’ve missed it for the past, oh I don’t know, 15 or 20 years. I enjoy your site very much Debbie but enough about the oscars. If a subject interest me enough to find out the “real” story I’ll do the research, not depend on the Hollywood haters and anti Semites. I sometimes wonder, though, how Jewish actors/actresses, Natalie Portman comes to mind, how they deal with the blatant anti Jewish and anti Israel crowd they work with.

kenny komodo on February 27, 2011 at 10:22 pm

You should see how the so-called “Conservatives” on the site with the initials HA fall all over themselves to be kind to the dying C Hitchens. They get all up in arms if someone is bold enough to say what they really think of the dying CH.

I find it utterly nausiating when people use “fake” concern over someon who truely did NOT care when he was well if he offended people. I have NO problem if people still have no sympathy for CH in his last days. He has earned in IMHO.

Skunky on February 27, 2011 at 10:23 pm

Americans relate to the UK because of leaders like Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. These leaders are anomalies. As a general rule, the U.K. has thwarted American strategic efforts and betrayed American secrets to many of our enemies.

UK intelligence agencies are infiltrated by virtually every anti-British, anti-American and anti-Semitic enemies known to man. Jack Philby betrayed the British to the United States and made alliances with anti-Semites in the U.S. State Dept. and U.S. intelligence agencies. His son, Kim Philby was a Soviet spy who betrayed the UK and USA in devastating ways.

Kim Philby was able to maintain his stature in British Intelligence by his falce adherence to strict pro-Nazi sympathies complete with overt Anti-semitism. All this was perfectly acceptable to the British intelligence establishment and provided a perfect cover for Philby’s spying for the Soviets.

America has much better allies than the UK. American sympathies toward King George VI are rooted in our common English language and alliance during WWII. As you can see Debbie, the reality is much more complex than that.

There is NO Santa Claus on February 27, 2011 at 11:26 pm

Well, people on this site should write to the heads of the movie chains, to the director, studios, and even the actors, to protest the one-sided presentation of the Stern gang, to demand the Jewish point of view.

We can’t stop the movie, but we can speak up.

The Stern gang never attacked civilians, unlike the Arabs. The Jews only fought against the British, who were beating women and children to force them back on leaky ships to return to Germany.

To date, while that overaged whore Queen Elizabeth has visited every Arab country in the Middle East, neither she nor her moronic syphilitic children have ever stepped foot in Israel.
They royal family celebrate their German roots by their anti-Semitism, and the British are so dumb, they treat these Hun interlopers as the Anglo-Saxon royalty they pretend to be. To them, I say, “gay kocken up en yom.”

G-d bless America and Israel, and let England sink into the ocean.

JG: It’s “Gay Kocken Offen Yom,” which, to my non-Yiddish-speaking readers, means “Go S–t in a Lake/Ocean,” but is basically a Jewish way of saying, “F— Off.” DS

Jonathan Grant on February 27, 2011 at 11:59 pm

    Jon, I agree with how Debbie phrased it.

    We’re getting a whitewash of the British occupation of Eretz Israel.

    Today, the capos in Israel have learned from the British brutality by beating and shooting Jews at Havat Gilad – which by the way is privately owned Jewish land.

    This is what they learned from the British. But the Jews will rebuild their homes and defy the government’s oppression of them.

    Am Yisrael Chai

    NormanF on February 28, 2011 at 11:37 am

I agree with almost everything you’ve said, but Churchill was not the Prime Minister after WW2. The Labor Government under Attlee and Bevin were the ones who formulated the policy of keeping the Jews out of then-Palestine.

Churchill and Roosevelt must take the blame for the non-action during the war. The failure to bomb the rail lines leading to Auschwitz-Birkenau was reprehensible.

The anti-semitism of the British royals persists to this day. The Queen has traveled to every pre-war British-ruled territory except Israel, her idiot son, Charles, went to Rabin’s funeral, and Philip went when his mother was declared a “righteous Gentile” (and she was Greek, not British).

G: Churchill was PM for a good part of the time that the Brits controlled “Palestine.” In fact, the Brits controlled the area for his entire first Prime Ministership (which he served from 1940-1945), during which they constantly sided with the Arabs and against Jews, turning them away and deporting them regularly. So he shares blame. DS

Gerry on February 28, 2011 at 12:10 am

    Is it just possible, maybe, that firth has never heard, or read, the actual history? He is British, after all, and what would he have learned? His wife is an active environmentalist,
    and apparently, makes documentaries , or made a documentary , with that as a theme.
    The kicker about the British Mandate Administration was the High Commissioner was a British Jew, Sir Herbert Samuels, who fully co-operated. The best, most authoritative account of the British stance ,its inception, policies, people involved and responsible for setting-up the Arab unrest and the origins of today’s problems. and reasons motivating those stationed in Palestine from the beginning, is by Pierre Van Paassen in ” The Forgotten Ally.” it can be purchased at Abebooks on line.he was an exceptional writer and newsman, who knew almost everyone who was important to know.

    Carolyn on February 28, 2011 at 11:31 am

At the time of his arrest in Hamburg in 1945, Joachim von Ribbentrop presented the arresting officers with a letter addressed to Vincent Churchill containing the Last Political Will and Testament of Adolf Hitler.

– Hitlers secretary Traudl Junge only typed three copies of Hitlers last political will and testament.
– The last political will and testament of Adolf Hitler in the possession of Joachim Von Ribbentrop is never mentioned by Traudl Junge.
– The “Vincent Churchill” letter and Hitlers testament is forwarded to Winston Churchill in 1945 and then on to Stalin and the US President.
– Stalin complains that the Russians have failed to capture Adolf Hitler.
– Winston Churchill requests an inquiry into the last days of Adolf Hitler to establish whether or not Hitler escaped.
– Hugh Trevor-Roper is appointed on behalf of the British government to write a report on the last days of Adolf Hitler.
– The report prepared by Hugh Trevor- Roper never mentions a letter addressed to Vincent Churchill containing the last political will and testament of Adolf Hitler even though the British government of 1945 is aware of Ribbentrops copy.
– Hugh Trevor-Roper is widely praised for his research work and accordingly embraced by the British Establishment.
– Joachim Von Ribbentrop faints as the indictments are read out at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.
– Joachim Von Ribbentrop is never questioned during the tribunal about the Vincent Churchill letter and the last political will of Adolf Hitler. He is later hanged.
– The relationship between Russia and the West turns cold. In years to come the Russians remain very sceptical about the circumstances surrounding the end of the Second World War and the possible escape of the Nazi leadership. The Russians are also very interested in Rudolf Hess at the Spandau prison.

Has there been a cover-up in London?

Something smells rotten in London. But lets face it…… It´s not as if no-one has been complaining about the quality of British investigations…. (There has been Mr. Al Fayed, Mr John Ward – father of Julie and Dr. Jim Swires just to mention a few).

Please post comments on this blog if you have anything to add on whether there has been a cover-up in London of historic proportions.

Robin Drinkall on February 28, 2011 at 3:05 am

Debbie, there’s no such thing as ‘King George VI of England’ — it is King George VI of the United Kingdom.

The monarchy in the UK is just that — Britain’s collectively.

Sorry to be pedantic but it’s a bit of a gripe of mine — too many people always conflate England to mean the UK and thus other parts of the UK — Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are totally ignored.

Barry on February 28, 2011 at 3:31 am

@Bury Old England

I see you deal in arrogance. Saying “who cares” that the UK stood up to the Nazis is so absolutely rude and ignorant. I’ll tell you who cares — the people who wanted to fight for freedom and not be oppressed by Nazi rule. The same Nazi rule that had it conquered Europe (which it nearly did) would have conquered the dear ol’ United States as contrary to popular myth, Germany’s army was superior to Americas and make no mistake would have ass wooped you guys.

Instead of your anti-British bias, perhaps you should celebrate that it took combined efforts to stop — combined efforts which STARTED with Britain standing up to the Nazis!

This moral gloating over WW2 achieves nothing — today we are faced with global Islamic Jihad and today we must WORK TOGETHER to stop it!

Oh, and for the record, the Soviet Union was in an alliance with Germany until Hitler decided to invade Russia. So all this praise for the Soviets is complete B.S. — they were on the side of evil at the beginning of the war.

Barry on February 28, 2011 at 3:40 am

    What about the people who wanted freedom from British rule?

    During WW2, the UK might have been held up as a shining example of freedom to conquered white Europeans. But in other parts of the world, they were the colonial oppressors. The original poster has a valid point in that the British are not history’s heroes by any sense of the word. Just ask the Irish (or the Israelis!).

    Fcat5 1334 on February 28, 2011 at 8:34 am

    Dear Barry—we had a 90 division limit. We could have gone higher, as we actually emerged from WWII stronger than when we went in, unlike the Soviets. The Brits finally fought the Germans after fumbling their best chance in 1938 due to the cowardice of Chamberlain.

    Had we not been able to beat the Germans conventionally, we would have used nukes, as there was no dissension against their use against Germany, just Japan.

    We supplied the Soviets with food and the vast majority of their trucks. Without our help, their offenses would have been impossible. (See Deathride, by John Mosier) The Brits were armed with Shermans, for the most part, as well, and from 1944 on were the minority partner.

    We did all this while pounding Japan to rubble. Again, the Germans are lucky the war did not go on. They had no way of projecting their power across the ocean, and a pathetic surface Navy. We would have Nuked them into the Neolithic if they had resisted us. And we were still not using ALL our power.

    Yes, Britain did a great job in WWII

    Occam's Tool on February 28, 2011 at 3:49 pm

      Sorry, that was a sentence fragment at the end—“Yes, Britain did a great job during WWII, but only after screwing up their best chance in 1938.

      Incidentally, by 1944, the American Armed forces were kicking Wehrmacht tail. Improved air-ground communication, superb aerial interdiction of supplies and movement, and, of course our superior artillery/communications were resulting in a combined arms air/land battle that the Germans could not match, despite their superior tanks. The ability to put together combined arms actually can count for more than the quality of the individual components; of course, our artillery and air support WERE unmatched by the Germans.

      Occam's Tool on February 28, 2011 at 3:57 pm

        Not quite. Look at any study from SLA Marshall on, and the casualty ratio of American/German losses show that Americans lost 1.5 men to every German. Too, we did supply the Soviets vast amounts of trucks, whose effectiveness is debatable over largely impassable Russian roads. As far as actual fighting materiel goes, the Soviets produced their own. The IL-2, the T-34, neither came from Chrysler or GM.

        perfidiousalbion on February 28, 2011 at 7:34 pm

          Pure, small sacale infantry fighting, yes, the Germans were better. But our genius is that we fought them on our terms, not theirs.

          Occam's Tool on May 17, 2011 at 1:09 pm

          Without our trucks and food, the Soviets would not have won.

          Occam's Tool on May 17, 2011 at 1:11 pm

You must be the most fascist person on Earth.

Get a grip Drebbie…

Imogen on February 28, 2011 at 3:48 am

    You must be the most fascist person on Earth.

    Get a grip Drebbie…

    Imogen on February 28, 2011 at 3:48 am


    What made you say that?

    Miranda Rose Smith on February 28, 2011 at 7:19 am

    Fascists are any one who assaults and tries to murder Jews – and this including Israeli police commanders issuing illegal and immoral orders to attack Jews with lethal force.

    I have zero tolerance for them.

    NormanF on February 28, 2011 at 11:44 am

      No Norman, a fascist is someone who has totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, and who exalts the state and/or religion above individual rights…

      Ergo: Drebbie is a fascist

      “Fascist” is not the exclusive right of the Jews simply because they have been persecuted by fascism – widen your view.

      Imogen on February 28, 2011 at 3:42 pm

        No Norman, a fascist is someone who has totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, and who exalts the state and/or religion above individual rights…

        Where does Ms. Schlussel do or say any of that?

        Miranda Rose Smith on March 1, 2011 at 2:01 am

But the movie whitewashes this King George’s brother, King Edward VIII–who abdicates the thrown because of his marriage to divorcee and well-known slut Wallis Simpson–and his Nazi sympathies.

“Abdicates the thrown?” He must have been (sic.)

Miranda Rose Smith on February 28, 2011 at 5:11 am

In fact, there is no mention of Ms. Simpson’s sexual affair with German Ambassador to Britain, Joachim von Ribbentrop. The FBI reported that she was passing secret information obtained from her hubby, the King, to the Nazi government.

Where is the documentation for that?

During the 1930s, Ms. Schlussel, a lot of people said things about Hitler, may his name be erased, that their admirng biographers wound up wishing they hadn’t SAID.

Miranda Rose Smith on February 28, 2011 at 5:14 am

    During the 1930s, Ms. Schlussel, a lot of people said things about Hitler, may his name be erased, that their admirng biographers wound up wishing they hadn’t said.

    Miranda Rose Smith on February 28, 2011 at 5:14 am

    Miranda Rose Smith on February 28, 2011 at 5:15 am

As I pointed out when you first wrote the review of King Speech beside the anti-semitism of King George VI he was an appeasement supporter.
The growing likelihood of war in Europe dominated the early reign of George VI. The King was constitutionally bound to support Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler.[6][39] However, when the King and Queen greeted Chamberlain on his return from negotiating the Munich Agreement in 1938, they invited him to appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace with them. This public association of the monarchy with a politician was exceptional, as balcony appearances were traditionally restricted to the Royal Family.[6] While broadly popular among the general public, Chamberlain’s policy towards Hitler was the subject of some opposition in the House of Commons, which led historian John Grigg to describe the King’s behaviour in associating himself so prominently with a politician as “the most unconstitutional act by a British sovereign in the present century”.


madman on February 28, 2011 at 7:01 am

The Brit stabbed the Czech in the back.

madman on February 28, 2011 at 7:03 am

It was under George VI that Jews–including at least a ship of them trying to escape the Holocaust and being sent back to their certain deaths in Nazi Europe–

If you mean the “Struma,” they weren’t sent back to certain death in Nazi occupied Europe. They were sent to certain death at the bottom of the Mediterranean.

Miranda Rose Smith on February 28, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Debbie was referring to the SS St. Louis, which was denied docking facilities in Cuba and the USA. It was forced to return to Hamburg, and the passengers were sent to concentration camps.

    gerry on February 28, 2011 at 11:10 am

      Debbie was referring to the SS St. Louis, which was denied docking facilities in Cuba and the USA. It was forced to return to Hamburg, and the passengers were sent to concentration camps.

      gerry on February 28, 2011 at 11:10 am


      It wasn’t the British who sent back the “St. Louis.” It was Roosevelt.

      Miranda Rose Smith on March 1, 2011 at 1:58 am

Although Churchill could have – and should have – done a lot more, I have seen Jewish records to the effect that he was very pro-Zion at one time. And even further back, he was certainly aware of the Islamist threat and there is an article of his about the nature of that threat available on the internet

Nir Leiu on February 28, 2011 at 7:29 am

    That sounds to me like excuses. I don’t approve of Britain anti-Jewish policy during the Mandate. It was legally and morally repugnant, a vile affront to civilized conduct and decent behavior. The Prime Minister knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it. For that, both Churchill and Attlee share the blame.

    Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has promised to get the root of today’s outrageous assault on Jews at Havat Gilad – and if he doesn’t see to it the planners and perpetrators are punished, he too, will share the blame.

    I have zero tolerance for evil.

    NormanF on February 28, 2011 at 11:51 am

      Hi Norman – not making excuses, merely trying to point out there are shades of grey. The socialists who came after Churchill were actively against the fledgling state of Israel (Atlee and his lout of a foreign minister).

      And it’s not just Jew-hatred. The UK rulers have sold out their own people to the Libyans for a barrel of oil. (See Lockerbie and the murder of London woman police officer (Yvonne Ridley?) by someone from the Libyan consulate).

      Shalom, Norman

      Nir Leiu on February 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm

Coincidentally, it was another Oscar-winer – Ben Hecht – who had a vessel named after him which got through the British blockade of the then-Palestine. The effete Brits banned Hecht’s movies for a long time because of his outspoken support for a homeland. (Google for much more info on the supremely talented Hecht.)

Nir Leiu on February 28, 2011 at 7:47 am

Kingie George VI also wanted to appointed the appeaser Lord Halifax instead of Churchill as PM.
Regarding the British govenment the PM does not have power of your President and Churchill was PM in a unity coalition government.
That sais he should have done more.

madman on February 28, 2011 at 8:24 am

Nir writes, “Although Churchill could have – and should have – done a lot more, I have seen Jewish records to the effect that he was very pro-Zion at one time.”

Churchill’s own Zionist sympathies took a back seat when “British interests” were deemed at stake. As PM during the War years he maintained the White Paper that restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine, while allowing free entry of Arabs from surrounding areas. That resulted in a major increase in the Arab population in the 1930s and 1940s, as confirmed by census figures. (It’s hardly surprising, therefore, that the UN in establishing the criteria for “refugee” status after 1948 set TWO years as the minimum residency requirement.)

And yes, during the war of 1948-49, the Brits were firmly on the Arab side, not only leaving weaponry behind for them, but a Brit (Glubb Pasha) to lead Transjordan’s Arab Legion in their war against the Jews.

Raymond in DC on February 28, 2011 at 9:14 am

Don’t hate the movie and subject matter just because of your biases. It’s a movie and it was a great one. Should we conclude also that every pro-Semitic movie is a classic and deserving of praise merely because it fits your particular worldview? Of course not.

Dale on February 28, 2011 at 10:00 am

@Fcat5 1334

You question the people who wanted free from British rule? Erm, what about them? The context was referring to the genesis of world war 2. Correct me if I’m wrong but which of the 2 world wars did Britain cause again — oh, that’s right, none! It did stand up to the Nazis & fight with all its might to stop Nazi Germany — it’s cities being bombed as proof of the harrowing war.

And no-one is exalting Britain as the hero of mankind. No nation can claim that mantle. During the 1930s, no-one wanted to help the Jews fleeing Europe. Not Britain,Not Canada and not the United States.It is a disgrace. But equally disgraceful was the appeasement of Hitler which allowed him to grow in stature and thus develop the power to start war.

However, your accusations that Brits were colonial oppressors is yet another another anti-white diatribe I suspect.By definition the people who colonised America were being imperialistic — for people who hate the fruits of that colonialism i.e Western civilisation, they are always free to emigrate in protest. I mean, without Britain, the United States would not exist — nor would Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Indeed, it was Britain that ushered in the industrial Revolution and thus the advent of the modern world. Britain is not perfect, but it’s easy to attack a prominent nation for its flaws — one which ushered in the new world, traversed oceans bringing western civilisation with them and gave humanity more than 99.9% of all other nations.

Barry on February 28, 2011 at 10:19 am

Debbie as a movie lover and one who see things politically as you do, it is so discouraging to read this about Colin Firth who in public at least comes off as a very classy individual but I will have very mixed feelings about him from now on. These guys make it hard, loved True Grit, but Jeff Bridges is a huge fund raiser for the Dems. Melissa Leo, I find it very hard to believe that her f-bomb on stage was a “slip of the tongue” and she is about as liberal as you can get. Natalie Portman, I think, seems to have dialed it down politically as has Nicole Kidman (maybe hanging around Country music folk has opened her mind a bit– she made a strong anti-terrorism statement a few years back and has made no political donations since 2004). Annette Bening, well no hope there.

It’s ironic that Sandra Bullock made a joke about Bridges sharing the wealth since he won last year, you could almost call it Commie Karma. Overall the show was very hard to watch, Franco seemed completely out of it and they really need, in my opinion, to replace Bruce Vilanch and find some new writers.

Stephen Schochet on February 28, 2011 at 10:30 am

Deb, if her King’s government demands that Israel get out of Judea and Samaria, should her government set the example by getting out of the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales? Freedom for the Non-English people now!!!!!!!

Great Britain is nothing more than imperialist England and its vassal states.

Jonathan Grant on February 28, 2011 at 11:27 am

Whatever the UK once was, its sinking fast into oblivion. Somehow it won’t be missed and what’s happening to it, “King’s Speech,” or not, is richly deserved payback for centuries of anti-Semitism and Arabophillic sympathies – think of T.E Lawrence.

The sun has truly set upon them.

NormanF on February 28, 2011 at 11:29 am

While it is entirely true that The Soviet union won the second world war, that does not mean that other countries did not play a significant roll in Hitler’s downfall.

The U.K.’s most important roll is that they kept the war going – alone, at a time when the American government, and the American people, were more than happy to sue for peace with the Third Reich.

Over here we refer to WW2 as “the ’39 to ’45 war.” Remind me again what you guys call it?


Appeasing Hitler in 1938 was pretty much the only smart thing that Chamberlain ever did. Had Britain entered the war in 1938 they would have been crushed by the Wehrmacht in months if not weeks. In truth we were not really ready in 1939 either, but at least he had brought time to begin the re-armament process.

Ricky Lenin on February 28, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Actually, Churchill had longed warned of the threat of Hitler. The English ignored him.

    Had Chamberlain and the rest of the people not agreed to carving up of Czechoslovakia, Hitler would have been overthrown by his own army, and WWII would not have happened. You are rationalizing the wimpiness of England, and the tacit approval of Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies by the English.

    Just as you went along with the carving up with Czechoslovakia, you are doing the same to Israel, for which the result would be the same.

    Jonathan Grant on February 28, 2011 at 1:44 pm

For the astute and Classically educated commenters here: I have a question –

From whence did Britain’s vital oil supplies come from during WWII, especially the earliest days of the gathering conflict with Nazi Germany?


I know the USA supplies running the Atlantic were being torpedoed regularly, so we couldn’t possibly have supplied enough in the early days. I know aLL about the oil tankers later, especially the ones Onassis bought through a highly illegal sale from someone in the US Government after the war, but during the war, where did Britain get its oil?

Jack on February 28, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Aside from the fact that he’s an anti-Semite, like most of the British “intellectual” and political class, Firth thinks conservatives are stupid and lefties are smart. He actually funded a study designed to show just that:


The obvious implication here is that conservatives shouldn’t be allowed to make important political decisions.

Another thing: anyone notice to extremely cold reception given to Sandra Bullock. He’s supposedly a conservative, and that dosen’t sit well at all.

Adam on February 28, 2011 at 4:07 pm

It appears that at certain points, some British leaders were merely guilty of prioritizing British interests over Jewish ones. A shocking position for THE LEADERS OF BRITAIN to take. The British didn’t defend Jews from Hitler, but the truth is that neither has anyone else before or – including Israel incidentally – since. Did anyone rise up to help the Armenians? Nope. Did anyone rise up to help the Sudanese, especially before it was Muslims getting killed in Darfur? Nope. Rwandans? Nope. The millions that were garroted by various regimes in Asia? Nope, nope nope. While not all of those rose up to the level of a genocide, they still qualified as large scale killings/ethnic cleansing attempts, and most of them didn’t even get a movie like “The Killing Fields.”

Sorry, but indicting the world for failing to do more with respect to the Holocaust implies that the world has ever intervened in any such cases before or since. The one time we did – Kosovo – was for reasons that had NOTHING to do with humanitarianism, plus many would argue that we actually intervened to help the wrong side, the result of which is a Muslim state (very quickly given official diplomatic recognition by George W. Bush!) in Europe.

Gerald on February 28, 2011 at 4:21 pm

“Appeasing Hitler in 1938 was pretty much the only smart thing that Chamberlain ever did. Had Britain entered the war in 1938 they would have been crushed by the Wehrmacht in months if not weeks. In truth we were not really ready in 1939 either, but at least he had brought time to begin the re-armament process.

Ricky Lenin on February 28, 2011 at 12:44 pm”
The Czech had a strong defense line and modern armaments. The German used those Tanks in Poland, France and German. This German had another 1.5 year to build up it armaments. While Britain and France armament industry was in a Peacetime mode. The USSR also had signed an agreement and they my have joined the Western allies in 1938. After Munich the USSR started talking to the Nazi because they though UK and France were weak.

madman on February 28, 2011 at 4:48 pm

“For the astute and Classically educated commenters here: I have a question –

From whence did Britain’s vital oil supplies come from during WWII, especially the earliest days of the gathering conflict with Nazi Germany?

Arabia had found some large fields but they were not a large producer of oil in WWII. The Arab broke those agreement which found the oil for them later on.

“After the war(WWI), one of the priorities of both Britain and France was to ensure their access to oil, particularly in Mesopotamia, where oil had been discovered in 1908. Division of spheres of interest in that region were heavily influenced by the potential of oil within the region. However, until the 1940s, the United States was the world’s leader in oil production, producing 65 percent of the world’s oil. In 1940, the Middle East accounted for less than 5 percent of total production.”

The Brits agreed to a Jewish state in WWI to obtain Jewish and American support for WWI. They than prevented Jews from going to their homeland. If the asshole Brits lived up to their agreement Million would have gone there in 1920 and 1930 thus escaping the holocaust

madman on February 28, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    Agreed. The great prize of WWI was Turkey, the oil fields of Persia and other regional resources such as Azerbejan, but … the question remains …. where di Great Britain get it’s oil for WWII?

    Jack on February 28, 2011 at 10:53 pm

Dear @Occam’s Tool

It took the combined forces of Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union to beat Germany.

Hitler was appeased for so long that it allowed his power to grow — somewhat similar to how the West is appeasing Islam and ironically aiding and abetting its growth.

The United States had nukes — in 1945.

Germany too knew how to make nukes but due to the allies was not able to develop the ‘hard water’ in Norway needed for its bomb.

So all this “we’d just have nuked ’em”” is utter nonsense.

If Britian did not fight the Nazis and refuse to allow the Nazis to run amock over Europe, the world would most definitely be different today.

If in 1942/42 Germany had achieved its goals — which was domination over mainland Europe including Russia, the United States WOULD NOT have been fighting a battered Germany. It would have been fighting a Nazi war machine.

People need to learn the lessons from that war — the chief one being that you do not let evil grow to the point that it gets so powerful, it may actually destroy you.

Today, we are faced with Islam which wants to kill us. Burying our heads in the sand will not stop it.

Barry on February 28, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    I most certainly agree with you about Islam. But, if we were faced with a Germany triumphant, we would have used long range bombers and nuked them, probably in 1946. The US industrial might won that war. Russian and British sacrifices made it possible to win without nukes.

    Occam's Tool on May 17, 2011 at 1:16 pm

Memo to @Jonathan Grant

You are using England interchangeably to mean United Kingdom. England is one country within the union — there are 3 others.

It’s really tedious.

Obama is not described as the ‘president of Hawaii’ is he? Churchill was Britain’s leader — not just England’s.

Barry on February 28, 2011 at 9:38 pm

Memo to @Jonathan Grant

Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are all CONSTITUENT members of the UK. Your assertion that England is occupying them is flat out wrong.

I don’t know what school you went to or what incorrect people/educational resources have influenced you, but that comment is just plain wrong.

Just because you hate England is not an excuse to display such gross ignorance of facts!

Barry on February 28, 2011 at 9:44 pm

Jack The middle east oil production was only 5% The vast majority of Britian import was from USA in WWII

madman on February 28, 2011 at 11:16 pm

Saw the King’s speech thought it was pretty good but a little slow… Saw Barney’s Version as well and I’d highly recommend that… enjoyed it….

Debbie, I don’t read you as much as I used to and have lost touch with who’s mad at who’s mad at who on here anymore…
So I don’t know if for instance you still endorse or like Michelle Malkin who I find almost comical how over the top angry she just happens to be every time she’s on tv – which is perhaps good for her clicks and book sales…. I assume you think Glen Beck is a certifiable cartoon character wacko – which he is etc.. For instance, I still read lgf almost daily and have had to concede that Pamela Geller is an over the top wacko as well….

Anyway, my point – if you’re pissed off 24/7 and every analysis of every movie like the King’s Speech for instance relates to how it relates to Jews and Israel then you start to sound like an angry broken one tone record….
And any movie you make that takes place during that time if you shake out any of the historical characters during that time period you’ll almost assuredly find some anti-semitic or anti survivor actions…

Hitchens is a perfect example, as in you don’t like him and referred to him as a “self hater”… etc.. even though I don’t think he’s more than 1/4 or 1/8th Jewish in his family tree and certainly doesn’t think of himself as Jewish…

And further, since he does hold some strong anti-zionist opinions in as far as he is very critical of what he believes the early zionists did in Palestine etc.. and is strongly anti-settlement now as well… you can’t write him off and tar and feather him… particularly since he is a very valuable and very capable spokesperson not to mention fearless…

Especially when taking on the toxic and accepted anti-semitism on the European left and also when taking on Mel Gibson and the racial stereotypes of Jews etc… not to mention his vicious criticism of Islamic anti-semitism especially during the cartoon controversly….

Thus, writing him off stock and barrel isn’t smart in my book bcs he espouses some things you don’t like… he’s pretty pro-semitic in my strong opinion and as opinion/spokespeople he’s about as good and fearless as they come..;..

I suggest a good bottle of red wine. Good night…
Regards –

Mike Nargizian on March 1, 2011 at 12:34 am

Just to cite my example just look at the comment above from Stephen Schochet on February 28, 2011 at 10:30 am….
He cites Jeff Bridges, a good guy by almost everyone’s account, Melissa Leo etc… well there no good bcs they support the Dems?
It’s freekin crazy as if someone is defined by whether or not they’re 100% down the line in support of the Repubs and pro Israel enough?
Some of the best people I know vote Democratic and some of the worst people, btw, got elected in 02 when Bush swept them into office….
People are people and the idea of writing someone off bcs they vote Dem or sometimes do is C R A Z Y…
OK enough, good night..

Mike Nargizian on March 1, 2011 at 12:40 am

Thank you for this wonderful insight to true Jewish history, and the distorted propaganda that happily streams from European and American media, unfortunately. I especially feel disappointed when actors I like turn out to be so very left in the movies they make, very much like Alan Rickman and his “My Name is Rachel Corrie” play. However, this is just a wake up call to not get comfy, and never forget how many people in the world are against Israel. I thank you for that! Lovely article!

Angie on August 8, 2011 at 4:05 am

How dare you assume that Colin Firth’s “Stern” film is an anti Israel propaganda project. You haven’t even seen the film yet, because it hasn’t been made. Your remarks are pure conjecture.
Besides, why should this darling and most compassionate of Christian minded men, want to take part in a propaganda film against Israel?!?

Mary on February 18, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Debbie write something about american jews and they stance during holocaust

Curious on June 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field