Blister Inside My Lip

Churchill did not say that, by Christopher Hitchens

El Sol de México , 30 de enero de 2011

"The King's Speech " is extremely well done film, with a seductive human-interest story, very nicely calculated to attract the most intelligent film buffs and Anglophiles dormant. But it takes out a serious distortion of history. One of the few actors who are ill-chosen for the role - Timothy Spall as a deplorable imitation of Winston Churchill, is the rare example of this reconstruction of history. is presented as a firm friend and loyal prince princess stutterer and as a man generally favored a state solution to the crisis posed by the abdication of the elder brother of the prince, King Edward VIII.

In fact, Churchill was, as long as he dared to be "a constant friend of the presumptuous and spoiled Hitler sympathizer, Edward VIII. And let his romantic affection for this gargoyle cause great harm to the coalition forces, achieved at great cost, which was integrated as opposed to Nazism and the policy of appeasement. Churchill probably has no more hagiographic writer that the writer and biographer William Manchester U.S., but if you examine the relevant pages of his work "The Last Lion" , the historian will find that virtually resigned his hero during a full chapter.

Swallowing his differences with some senior leftist and liberal politicians, Churchill had helped build a lobbying group with strong popular support against the collusion of Neville Chamberlain with European fascism. The group had the name resonant of Arms and the Covenant. However, as the crisis deepened, Churchill became distracted from their essential work - to the horror of his colleagues to get involved in keeping the "playboy" pro-Nazi on the throne. Detached handfuls of his political capital by appearing at the House of Commons, almost certainly too intoxicated, according to Manchester to deliver an incoherent speech in defense of "loyalty" a man who had no idea of \u200b\u200bthat concept. In a letter to Edward VIII, written the same year-not quoted by Manchester awkwardly explains his hope that the king "shine in history as the bravest and most beloved of all the sovereigns who have held the crown of the island." (You can see here how empty and it may sound exaggerated style of Churchill when defending a wrong cause, never forget that he once described himself as the lone voice who warned the British people the double threat of Hitler and Gandhi !)

Ultimately, Edward VIII proved to be so stupid and selfish and vain that it was impossible to rescue him, and the moment passed. Or the worst of the moment passed. Remained slightly as suggested in the film: a strong admirer of the Third Reich, who even spent his honeymoon with Wallis Simpson, the woman for whom he abdicated the throne, and was photographed both hearing and doing the Hitler salute. In his few friends and colleagues, the majority were activists as hateful black shirts "Fruity" Metcalfe. (The royal biographer Philip Ziegler did his best to clean this squalid story a few years ago, but eventually gave up.) During his visits to Europe after his abdication, Edward, then Duke of Windsor, he never failed to keep highly irresponsible contacts with Hitler and his puppets, and seemed to be proclaiming its readiness to become a puppet or "ruler" if the tide was moving the other way. That is why Churchill eventually moved out of Europe and gave him the sinecure of a colonial governor in the Bahamas, where she would be well supervised.

other considerations aside, would it not have been fractionally more interesting to the public the real story? But apparently never get to the time when the cult of Churchill is open for an honest inspection. And so the film continues, with increasing applied Vaseline on the lens. It is suggested that, once they been overcome some bumps in the road and some impediments in the psyche of the young monarch, Britain is it once more, with Churchill and King in Buckingham Palace, and is preparing a speech of unity and resistance.

Here, again, retouching and petroleum jelly are partners. When Neville Chamberlain succeeded in overcoming the opposition Labor Party, Liberal Party and the conservative churchilianos to give to his friend Hitler most of the people of Czechoslovakia, along with the vast munitions factories in the country, received an unprecedented political favor. Upon landing at Heston Airport on his return from Munich, was greeted by a royal guard in uniform gala and invited to go immediately to Buckingham Palace. A written message from King George VI urged him to stand "for me to express to you personally my warmest congratulations ... This letter carries the warmest welcome for someone who, through his patience and determination, has won the lasting gratitude of his countrymen throughout the Empire. "

Chamberlain was then displayed on the balcony of the palace and greeted by royalty before a jubilant crowd. Thus, Munich Acquiescing had received the real line before the Prime Minister went to Parliament and justify what he had done. The opposition forces checkmate received before the game had begun. Britain has no written constitution, but by ancient custom, the royal assent is given to the measures after they have been accepted by both houses of Parliament. Accordingly, the conservative historian Andrew Roberts, in his essay definitely conviction written in 1994, "The House of Windsor and the Poltics of Appeasament" was absolutely right in citing the scholar John Grigg in support of its view that, by acting as did, to give approval ahead of Chamberlain, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter for you) "committed the most unconstitutional act of a British sovereign in the present century. "

private correspondence and diaries of the royal family and show continued support consistent with the policy of appeasement and Chamberlain's personality. The stern mother of King George he wrote in exasperation that she had not been more people in the House of Commons that hailed the action. The King himself, even after the Nazi armies had been beaten deep in Scandinavia and the Netherlands crossed to France, not willing to accept the resignation of Chamberlain. He said "the grossly unfair ... the way it has been treated, and terribly sorry. When discussing a successor, King wrote that "I Of course, I suggested to (Lord) Halifax. "He explained that this champion of appeasement could not be a candidate, and in any way a wartime coalition could hardly be headed by an unelected member of the House of Lords. Undeterred, he wrote in his diary that he could not bear the thought of Churchill as prime minister and had hosted the defeated Halifax to say he would have wanted it to be chosen. All this can be easily met by anyone wishing to make a basic research.

In a few months, the British royal family will be relaunched with the magnificence of the wedding of Prince William with Kate Middleton. Terms such as "national unity" and "monarchy of the people" abound. Almost all of the moral capital of the German monarchy rather strange is invested in the myth developed their subsequent participation in "the best time of the Great Britain." In fact, it was for them, that time had never passed. So that this is not a detail but a greater desecration of historical account, which now apparently slips opposition to a baptism by Oscar.

(Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and

Slate Magazine, where this column originally appeared.'s Fellow Roger S. Media Mertz at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, California. For more articles like this, please visit www.slate.com.)

(Translated by Andrew Shelley)

The New York Times Syndicate