Why haven't they...

[Bigkahuna]

Nope. I'd see it for free at a DGA screening!

Hmmm...... Can you get me in then????

[McClef]

Rather than recite dozens of films I'll give you just one example: The Great Dictator, released in 1940. This was Charlie Chaplin's first all talking picture and, although nominally a comedy, in it Chaplin departed from his usual slapstick to include satire and social commentary. In the film he plays the dual roles of a Jewish barber in the ghetto, as well as Adenoid Hynkel, dictator of Tomania. Hitler's entire entourage is brilliantly satirized, as is his chief ally, Mussolini-- in this instance "Benzino Napaloni", the dictator of Bacteria, as played by Jack Oakie. The satire and social commentary was not lost on American audiences, and for the first time since the war had began, grass-roots Americans began to be openly hostile toward Hitler and his regime.

A brilliant film indeed but it hardly fits your defence of Hollywood at the time.

Chaplin remained a Brit throughout his entire Hollywood career and never became an American Citizen. He began preparation on the movie even before Britain went to war with Germany and he later stated that had he known the full horror of the Nazi regime he would never have made it. It was touch and go if it would ever be released and he had to largely finance it himself and in the teeth of alarm messages coming from United Artists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dictator

So citing other examples of Hollywood's input in that period would still be welcome.

Just as soon as I finish the musical version of Oswald Mosley and Lord Ha-Ha In Love I'll get right on it.

Must be a long distance love story!

It's called Dramatic License, and it goes back to the days of Shakespeare. You remember him. He was English, and he never took liberties with history. Did he?

There is a world of difference between dramatic licence and wholesale rewriting of history which is less about taking liberties and more like taking the pi$$.

[macwilkin]

I'll mention another example of a movie made in 1941 to counter the isolationalist sentiment in the USA: Sgt. York, with Gary Cooper in the starring role.

The real Sgt. Alvin York was an outspoken interventionist, and had a number of public debates in the media with the noted isolationist Charles Lindbergh, who made a very vitrolic anti-Semitic, anti-British speech in Des Moines, Iowa as part of the "America First" committee:

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/amer...rst/speech.asp

Every time I read it, it makes me sick to my stomach.

T.

[McClef]

Of course Sergeant York was about the First World War rather than the second. No doubt it was trying to make a point though.

Spirit of St Louis hardly represents the real Lindy having read the speech.

The US only declared war upon Japan, not Germany. It was Germany that declared war upon the US even they were under no obligation under the Axis Pact to do so as the US had not attacked Japan.

Had Germany not declared war upon the US it might have taken the US a lot longer to take on Germany as well as Japan.

[macwilkin]

Of course Sergeant York was about the First World War rather than the second. No doubt it was trying to make a point though.

Exactly. If you've seen the movie, much of the story centers around York's pacifist beliefs as part of a Evangelical Christian Church. In the movie, York's Company Commander (he was drafted, regardless of his C.O. status) convinces York to fight using American history & the fight for freedom. It's actually fairly well done, but you can certainly see how the speech could be applied to the present (1941) circumstances.

Spirit of St Louis hardly represents the real Lindy having read the speech.

Lindbergh was a bit of an odd duck, to but it midly.

The US only declared war upon Japan, not Germany. It was Germany that declared war upon the US even they were under no obligation under the Axis Pact to do so as the US had not attacked Japan.

Had Germany not declared war upon the US it might have taken the US a lot longer to take on Germany as well as Japan.

Well, yes and no...Germany and the US were already unofficially at war, when the US Navy started providing escorts for British ships carrying lend-lease. Fine distinctions such as declarations of war meant nothing to the sailors who died on the USS Reuben James:

http://www.reuben-james.navy.mil/Sit...s/history.aspx

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/a_p...ben_james.html

Regards,

Todd

[Bugbear]

I think the U.S. did declare war on Germany. Perhaps, I will look that up if I get a chance today.

[macwilkin]

I think the U.S. did declare war on Germany. Perhaps, I will look that up if I get a chance today.

Only after Germany declared war on the US, December 11, 1941:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3532401.stm

T.

[Dan R Porter]

I think the U.S. did declare war on Germany. Perhaps, I will look that up if I get a chance today.

I believe the term used was "Wage war."

[macwilkin]

I believe the term used was "Wage war."

See my post above.

T.

[Bugbear]

Only after Germany declared war on the US, December 11, 1941:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3532401.stm

T.

Yes, but I don't thank that was what was said in the post I was looking at. I will go back and reread it carefully.
In a quick search I did find that and also what you were saying about the U.S. fighting with Germany before the formal declaration of war.