Excellent Movie

I'm well aware of that view of things, jk, but I stand by my criticism. Besides, while what you say is factually accurate, it's decidedly not what was in the film -- so why all the lies by the screenwriter?

You're addressing what is mostly historical fact -- as you say, most people were eager to do anything to avoid another war because they remembered the slaughter of the 1914-1918 conflict. This is why an incompetent, egocentric fool like Neville Chamberlain could be self-delusional in thinking that, as he condescendingly told an aide after Munich when this man reminded him of Hitler's past deceptions, "But you see, my dear fellow, this time it is different -- this time, he has made his promises to me." Britain and France were as much the architects of the disaster that befell them in September '39 as were the Nazis, thanks to the weakness, cowardice, selfishness and cynicism of their leaders, Chamberlain above all.

Just as a side note, disillusion had begun creeping in as early as October and November 1938, when people began seeing what the Nazis were doing in the Sudentenland, and after the dismemberment of what was left of Czechoslovakia in March, 1939, followed by Germany's forcible annexation of Memel two weeks later, the British public had finally woken up and began demanding that the government stand up to Germany...a public sentiment that was met by Chamberlain, after the final destruction of Czechoslovakia, with his pronouncement, "The government will continue its policy of appeasement." Even after September 1, Chamberlain had to be dragged into declaring war after a two-day delay, in spite of Britain's treaty obligations with Poland, and with most of his Cabinet in revolt against him. By then the public was in favor of fighting.

HOWEVER...none of this has anything to do with the film's veracity. King Gorge VI was a full-throated supporter of appeasement. He was not at all a friend or even an admirer of Churchill -- quite the opposite. He agreed with Chamberlain and wanted peace at any price -- then as always a surefire way of getting war.

So: why does the movie insist on falsifying history? Granted it would suit the filmmakers to skate over George's blindness to the Nazis and support of appeasement in order to make him seem a more sympathetic figure. But why take the extra step of inventing an attitude he didn't hold, friendships he didn't have and and alliances he didn't strike to tell his story? At best, they should have just ignored the sordid yet historically accurate details of the King's actual beliefs and just centered on his speech issues. Dragging Churchill into proceedings with which he not only had nothing whatsoever to do, but with a man who did not like or agree with him, all for the purpose of dishonestly glorifying the King, was an outrage.

In short, you've explained, accurately, why the King believed what he actually did. Fine. But the film lies about it -- thoroughly and egregiously. And that's the problem.

The film also misstates the relationship between the King and Lionel Logue, but that's another, and relatively harmless, falsification.