Zero mention of the Yanks?

This might seem strange to you but not everything is about America nor does everything relate to the Iraq war. Can you not watch a film without wanting some mention of America or something? I wouldn't read too much into the fact America was not mentioned, especially if you consider the era in which the film is set. Britain-- then the most powerful country in the world-- was fighting an exhausting war and were losing so many soldiers while America was only just coming out of isolation and had yet to establish itself as a World Power. To the people of that era, yes America's involvement was a footnote since it was a war fought in Europe and that caused the deaths of millions of Europeons.

Also, in the film we only saw a handful of re-enactments of meetings that might of took place, and since this is a British film then obviously the focus will be on Britain. Had this been an American film then of course, it would be very clear the part America played in WWI. After all, in 'Saving Private Ryan', you'd barely know there were as many British soldiers who stormed the beach at Normandy as there were Americans. Even when scripts do attempt to remain balanced, there will always be bias towards the country who developed the script. It doesn't mean there is any great conspiracy against America or denying they contributed to the wars.

Is the absence some sort of European psychological process of denial at play or is it a reflection on the affect intravenous doses of liberal news media have upon them in regard to Iraq?

If anything, the BBC are quite pro-Iraq.




'She never stated that the stags in the books are male deers.' ~ Gracie11, IMDb troll

Because this movie shows the events of WW1 from this Prince John's prespective and since the U.S. did not enter it until later then naturally they aren't going to really mention the Americans.

Agreed. The prince's story didn't need the presence of the Yanks. In fact, the lengthy inclusion of the Romanovs, if that was factual, seemed a little too stretched out as well.

"Slavery endorsing scumbag"? Let's see, who started slave trading first? The English or the USA? And where did slavery start and where is it still being practiced today? But this has nothing to due with the topic anyway and, seeing how you offered nothing of substance in that regard, I really don't feel obligated to offer anything in return. That's how things work. Really....

Who said anything that the "focus" should be on the USA? Certainly it was not me! (Go ahead and find it ...) You may enjoy ~thinking~ whatever you want to concerning WW2 which isn't the focus anymore than WW1 is in this topic but you might want to read a little history to learn of all the 'irrelevant' stuff like the lend lease act or stuff that traveled from the USA to England in the North Sea for starters. So, the 'tide was turned' at the Battle of Britain!?! Right, the Battle of Britain prevented the Blitz which then never happened - of course! http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/london-blitz.htm (Hint: It was the Blitz that turned the tide - having over 35,000 innocent men, women and children slaughtered by Nazi bombs changed some HEARTS in England ...)

[deleted]

1:The United States of America is NOT the only country in the world, which many Americans seem to think. They are so insular.

2: The whole world DOES NOT revolve around the U.S.of A.

3: This film had sweet FA to do with Americans, it was about the British Royal Family. The First World War just happen to occur during part of when this film was set, and it was not a historical drama or documentary about WW1. Mentioning Amercians would have been totally irrelevant.

4: It is refreshing to see a film with no American accents.

I would see absolutely no reason whatsoever for America or any Americans being mentioned in this film. In fact it would have added a decidedly disconcerting note if they were. The subject matter at no point touches on anything that would lend itself to an insertion of America or Americans into the film.

That said there are a few things that as an historian I must comment on.

“But perhaps such low casualties out of over four million US soldiers mobilized can be seen as either the result of our lateness in arriving, our ability in fighting to win or a combination of both? “

This would be a decided mistake believing this to be true. By the time the US got involved militarily it was all over but the shouting. When it became apparent we were going to enter the war we made sure that sales of food and war materiels stopped being sent to Germany. The sad fact is even without that happening Germany’s fate was sealed. The US were notably inept soldiers for much of our involvement on the battlefield. The only change in tactics was in the fact the US had newer working tanks. There was no superior will to win.

I will not even comment on trying to bring Iraq war into this. It is just too laughable. Sad but laughable. It really is. I’m actually embarrassed for you.

“If the latter, let me make one thing perfectly clear to my European brothers and sisters, if the USA had had a hawk president in 1914 and a willing populace that put him there, (and I say 'him' because women couldn't even vote back then let alone be president..), and we had entered the war near the start, is there any doubt that it would have tipped the scales and MILLIONS of lives would have been saved? If we had all stopped Hitler from taking Poland in 1938, (per what should have happened per the Treaty of Versailles, correct?), is there any doubt that many more MILLIONS of lives would have been saved? And yet, if such had indeed taken place there would remain no proof of such millions having been saved! There would be only the musings of political pundits bandying about their experts' projections in tabloids whining about what was wrong with doing it and of what 'might of' occurred and all them likely wrong in one fashion or another.”

Ok, let me address this in steps.
First, there is no evidence that the US would not have suffered even worse than any country involved had there been a hawk as president. The Americans have no corner on having better soldiers. By the time the US entered the war, the wolf packs of German submarines were just about gone from lack of fuel. Had the US entered early there are no telling how many 100s of thousands on troops ships lost. Same can be said about ww2 as well. The wolf packs were pretty much beaten by 42. in both wars the US was lucky enough to enter after submarine threat diminished.
Second, there is no reason to suppose the US would have used any different tactics had they joined in the beginning. None. We were of the exact school of thought.
Third, there is nothing in the Treaty of Versailles about Poland that Germany violated with the US. Indeed nothing the US could sqwak about because the Treaty was a League of Nations Treaty and the US did not sign on. Had they done so then they may have had a voice. But American ‘Hawks’ refused it as being Un American (meaning no oil or ground to be cut up with our name on it). Had America joined the League, of who Wilson was a deciding founder, ww2 may never have happened. If the US had joined the League it is entirely possible Stalin might not have slaughtered 35 million people before ww2 even started. But bear in mind, Germany would not have even thought of invading Poland if not for Stalin. Hitler and Stalin divided Poland, talin getting the better piece too. Yet why was Russia delegated to valued ally but Germany to villain? The reason England and France entered the war upon the invasion of Poland was due to treaties with Poland. The US had no such treaties. The US only had a treaty with Poland with the falling apart of the Russian dominated Warsaw Pact. And only then because after ww2, unlike after ww1, America made a point of joining the United Nations. Naturally though the US only did so being self assured they’d dominate the UN, to the point of having its HQ in the center of the known universe.
Third, for someone who says “There would be only the musings of political pundits bandying about their experts' projections in tabloids whining about what was wrong with doing it and of what 'might of' occurred and all them likely wrong in one fashion or another.” You seem to exclude yourself from this type whining equation. Deliberate irony on your part?


“If that alternative outcome sounds a wee bit familiar and, if those two wars were of any indication, it seems that the USA was guilty back then of waiting too long while watching evil power gather in the distance and all of us in the free world guilty of watching history repeat itself in WW2. Let it be known that I for one see George Bush and Tony Blair as two leaders of the free world unwilling to watch it all happen yet again with both knowing fully well there will be little or nothing to prove 'what might have happened' if they had been as willing to wait and watch as were our leaders in the past. The courage to endure the prospect of such lack of proof, endure the tabloid pundits et al, to me, is the mark of true leaders and was, apparently, a painfully absent quality back in 1914. Though this screenplay did make its mark on that point, I believe that it should have at least mentioned that we were there too so that people might consider that, today, the yanks have come to the rescue yet again but, this time, - on time. “

Oh, my. this is not only rhetoric but just simply repugnant. Not only once again based on fallacy but nauseating jingoism at its worst. There was no “evil power gather in the distance and all of us in the free world guilty of watching history repeat itself in WW2." Germany in ww1 was no more evil than any other state. As to “watching history repeat itself in ww2" I find this astonishingly devoid of anything remotely resembling historical fact. The stronger case can be made the evil would not have risen in Germany prior to ww2 if not for the evil put upon it by the Draconian tenants of the treaty it was forced to sign after ww1. That and crippling loans they were literally forced to take out to pay as tribute after ww1. As to Bush and Blair, obviously you are in admiration and awe of these two men. Neither of whom has the combined intellect to forgo having L and R written on the soles of their shoes. Or is it you are merely you saw this movie on a Haliburton private jet?

The movie is about a family. You may have failed to notice but believe it or not the family was not American. It focused on one little boy's life and the family he was part of. Being that there was a war on during much of his life, that three of the main protagonists of that war were Kaiser Wilhelm, Tsar Alexander and King George and they were all cousins is the reason they are included.

I would also point out to the rest of the world that not every American is like this xenophobic right winger. Sadly, too many are. But not all. Some of actually appreciate the movie for what it was about. Not what it should have been. Perhaps he should stick to watching Ronald Reagan in Hellcats of the Navy. Enjoy how a war was won via commute from Burbank California.