Today I sat down to watch the prequel to the iconic piece of low budget British cinema: the 1964 film 'Zulu'. Like 'Zulu' it was written by Cy Enfield, but unlike 'Zulu': the left-wing bias of 'Zulu Dawn' is evident from the very beginning.
We see the Zulu nation under King Cetschwayo being portrayed as being full of noble and peaceful sentiments. While Lord Chelmsford (played by masterfully by Peter O'Toole) and Sir Henry Bartle Frere (similarly well acted by John Mills) are portrayed as extremely and irrationally racist in their motivations – as indeed are nearly all of the British soldiers – and thus they lose the battle of Isandlwana because they are foolish and are fighting against the 'freedom loving Zulus'.
This is obviously rather a-historical as the reason the British lost the battle of Isandlwana was not because they were racist or because they were fighting against the 'freedom loving Zulus'. They lost the battle – although not the war – because their new rifles – Martini-Henry Mark 1 and 2s - had not been tested in a prolonged firefight in the high heat of Africa.
So nobody knew – least of all Lord Chelmsford and his men – that after prolonged firing: the guns would seize up and jam due to overheating in the firing mechanism. (1) This can be seen in the fact that right up until the point this occurred in the battle of Isandlwana: it had been a massacre for the Zulus.
Thus when we note that 'Zulu Dawn' was produced by Nate Kohn. (2) We can further link the fact that this anti-Western piece of left-wing cinema can be somewhat linked to jewish influence.
References
(1) Felix Machanik, 1979, 'Firepower and Firearms in the Zulu War of 1879', Military History Journal, Vol. 4, No. 6 (http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol046fm.html)
(2) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080180/...f_=tt_ov_st_sm