The King's Speech: "Bertie" the Nazi sympathiser

Check out Slate:

[FONT=Verdana]Here again, the airbrush and the Vaseline are partners. When Neville Chamberlain managed to outpoint the coalition of the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, and the Churchillian Tories and to hand to his friend Hitler the majority of the Czechoslovak people, along with all that country’s vast munitions factories, he received an unheard-of political favor. Landing at Heston Airport on his return from Munich “peace in our time”], he was greeted by a royal escort in full uniform and invited to drive straight to Buckingham Palace. A written message from King George VI urged his attendance, “so that I can express to you personally my most heartfelt congratulations. … [T]his letter brings the warmest of welcomes to one who, by his patience and determination, has earned the lasting gratitude of his fellow countrymen throughout the Empire.” Chamberlain was then paraded on the palace balcony, saluted by royalty in front of cheering crowds. Thus the Munich sell-out had received the royal assent*before** ***the prime minister was obliged to go to Parliament and justify what he had done. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]The private letters and diaries of the royal family demonstrate a continued, consistent allegiance to the policy of appeasement and to the personality of Chamberlain. King George’s forbidding mother wrote to him, exasperated that more people in the House of Commons had not cheered the sellout. The king himself, even after the Nazi armies had struck deep north into Scandinavia and clear across the low countries to France, did not wish to accept Chamberlain’s resignation. He “told him how grossly unfairly he had been treated, and that I was genuinely sorry.” Discussing a successor, the king wrote that “I, of course, suggested [Lord] Halifax.” It was explained to him that this arch-appeaser would not do and that anyway a wartime coalition could hardly be led by an unelected member of the House of Lords. Unimpressed, the king told his diary that he couldn’t get used to the idea of Churchill as prime minister and had greeted the defeated Halifax to tell him that he wished he had been chosen instead. All this can easily be known by anybody willing to do some elementary research.[/FONT]

Who knows? If King George had had his way there would have been no WW2 or at least no Western Front in Europe.

[quote="didymus, post:1, topic:230700"]
Who knows? If King George had had his way there would have been no WW2 or at least no Western Front in Europe

[/quote]

But did the King have much political sway in the 1930s? Certainly prestige, but actual power? And was George VI much of a German apologist? The article really doesn't talk much about King George, despite the film about him being the springboard for the article.

The article (written by Christopher Hitchens) is basically a criticism of Churchill and also of King Edward VIII. This king, after multiple affairs, abdicated from the throne to marry his mistress, and thus became the Duke of York. Here is an article which discusses German/Nazi tilt of Edward VIII more fully.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2701965.stm

Following Edward's accession, the German embassy in London sent a cable for the personal attention of Hitler himself.

In part, it read: "An alliance between Germany and Britain is for him (the King) an urgent necessity."

Alan Lascelles, Edward's private secretary, gave his own harsh judgment of the situation.

"The best thing that could happen to him would be for him to break his neck."

Within the year Edward, pressurised by the Church of England, the government and royal courtiers, decided to abdicate.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2701965.stm

God knows what He's doing. The arch-appeaser, under girded by royal flattery of the Fuhrer, inflated the ego of Hitler. Hitler was flattered; Hitler temporized; and Hitler later reproached himself for letting Great Britain buy that most precious of commodities: time.

Our Lady of the Rosary in her Fatima, Portugal, appearances, gave as the "only" means to a period of peace, the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by Peter united with all bishops in their respective cathedrals, requested for 1929. The consecration at this time would have prevented Stalin's starvation of Catholic kulaks/farmers in the Ukraine, the millions dying there and subsequently as a result of Russia's errors going unopposed by the Church on the spiritual battlefield chosen by God. "Pray the daily Rosary for peace."

[quote="didymus, post:1, topic:230700"]
Check out Slate:

Who knows? If King George had had his way there would have been no WW2 or at least no Western Front in Europe.

[/quote]

Or it would have lasted less than a year and he would have either been ruling as a Nazi puppet or the entire royal family bundled off to concentration camps on the channel isles.

The sentiment for Chamberlain was driven as much my hatred of Churchill as by the Windsor appeasement mentality. Had Edward remained on the throne the situaton would have been even worse as he and his morgantic wife had to be shipped off when war broke out because the continued their outspoken pro-fascist support.

[quote="Dale_M, post:2, topic:230700"]
But did the King have much political sway in the 1930s? Certainly prestige, but actual power? And was George VI much of a German apologist? The article really doesn't talk much about King George, despite the film about him being the springboard for the article.

The article (written by Christopher Hitchens) is basically a criticism of Churchill and also of King Edward VIII. This king, after multiple affairs, abdicated from the throne to marry his mistress, and thus became the Duke of York. Here is an article which discusses German/Nazi tilt of Edward VIII more fully.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2701965.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2701965.stm

[/quote]

'Duke of York'-you got your 'dukes mixed up. When Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, he took the name 'Duke of WINDSOR'.

'Duke of YORK' was his brother Bertie's title before he became king George VI. Check your history before posting, OK?

King George didn't want war-he fought in World War I in the Battle of Jutland while with the Royal Navy. I'm sure that he hoped that Chamberlain's journey to Munich would have prevented war-but we all know it didn't.

If I was born an Englishwoman instead of an American (and had lived in that time to boot) I would have wanted to have George VI as my King instead of Edward VIII any day. As Harry Truman said when King George died in 1952, 'He was worth a hundred of his brother Ed.' *

Why do so-called 'scholars' always pull down our heroes? I hate 'revisionist history'!

Thank God that George VI was King of England in World War II, and Churchill his Prime Minister!*

[quote="barb_finnegan, post:5, topic:230700"]
'Duke of York'-you got your 'dukes mixed up. When Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, he took the name 'Duke of WINDSOR'.

'Duke of YORK' was his brother Bertie's title before he became king George VI. Check your history before posting, OK?

King George didn't want war-he fought in World War I in the Battle of Jutland while with the Royal Navy. I'm sure that he hoped that Chamberlain's journey to Munich would have prevented war-but we all know it didn't.

If I was born an Englishwoman instead of an American (and had lived in that time to boot) I would have wanted to have George VI as my King instead of Edward VIII any day. As Harry Truman said when King George died in 1952, 'He was worth a hundred of his brother Ed.' *

Why do so-called 'scholars' always pull down our heroes? I hate 'revisionist history'!

Thank God that George VI was King of England in World War II, and Churchill his Prime Minister!*

[/quote]

[quote="barb_finnegan, post:5, topic:230700"]
'Duke of York'-you got your 'dukes mixed up. When Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, he took the name 'Duke of WINDSOR'.

[/quote]

:doh2:

You are absolutely correct. I even double checked the article before posting and yet still managed to mix it up. :blush:

And contrary to the title of the thread, "Bertie" was not the Nazi sympathizer. It was his brother who chose that path. Thank goodness, Edward VIII was not King during WWII.

[quote="Dale_M, post:7, topic:230700"]
:doh2:

You are absolutely correct. I even double checked the article before posting and yet still managed to mix it up. :blush:

And contrary to the title of the thread, "Bertie" was not the Nazi sympathizer. It was his brother who chose that path. Thank goodness, Edward VIII was not King during WWII.

[/quote]

Exactly! And thank God that Edward VIII was NOT the King during WWII! He would have surrendered England to the Nazis. In fact, his wife Wallis was a Nazi sympathizer-she was sleeping with the German ambassador at the time, Joachim von Ribbentrop.

It was actually his brother Edward along with Wallace Simpson. They visited Germany and the Nazi’s entertained them for awhile. I think he was just bored really and had nothing better to do than cause trouble. He didn’t want to be king and Wallace Simpson was a great excuse for him to abdicate. Bertie and His wife were actually very patriotic during WWII and tried to do a lot for their people like staying in London during the Blitz to keep up moral and visiting bombed out areas.

Well, I'm glad you all got that sorted out!
I was horrified by the inaccuracies in the OP!

If Hitler had said to the U.S. I take Europe and it's hands off the U.K. I'm not so sure we're in the war on the European front. And let's not forget, before the war there were Nazi rallies in Madison Square Garden and Nazi summer camps in the U.S.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.