I like the 1964.5 Mustang so he gets a pass on the Ford for having good taste.
You should have a bigger issue with him using German (and Italian) pistols.
Not to get too off topic but hasn't Bond traditionally used German pistols, as I recall the PPK was his gun of choice for a long time. Besides, it's not like the Brits make a lot of pistols these days and while their rifles (Enfields) used to be very good they've seem to have slipped since they developed the SA80. Sad to say that the Brits really aren't known for their engineering (or their cuisine for that matter) these days.
In the books (and in the first few minutes of Dr. No), Bond starts with a Beretta .25. After a Maj. Boothroyd wrote to Ian Fleming that the Beretta was inadequate and suggested the PPK, Fleming changed it, which you see in Dr. No.
I may be wrong on this and would defer to firearms experts, but my sense was that the UK didn't make too many semi-automatic pistols during the early half of the 20th century. Their military primarily used revolvers as sidearms, although there may have been the odd Browning Hi-power floating around, too. There were, I expect, even fewer smaller frame semi-autos suitable for concealed carry the way a spy would need (which is why Bond doesn't pack a 9mm or .45 or a Webley).
Anyway, on the subject of nationalism with respect to national involvement in WWII, I think it really depends on what exactly is being depicted. If your movie is focused on, say, the American experience in a battle in which America participated...then obviously you won't be spending a lot of time explaining the Soviet perspective. It gets more complicated with battles and/or theaters where multiple nations are involved (e.g. North Africa, Western Europe, etc.).
I find there also isn't a ton of focus in films on pre-1941 battles anyway...probably because a lot of them didn't go too well for the Allied forces, and nobody wants to make a film about the Nazi's kicking everyone's collective ass. Unless your film is about the French resistance and opens with the final days of the Battle of France...who really wants to watch that? You're basically limited to some of the North African campaign, and the Battle of Britain. The Soviets don't even really get involved until '41 either, and Barbarossa goes very, very poorly for them for a while. Oh, and before that, they were aggressors in Finland, fighting a not-particularly-successful invasion.
Anyway, my point is basically that a lot of the period prior to the US and the USSR's involvement with the Allies is a series of engagements where Britain and the Commonwealth forces barely hang on. It's a crucial period, to be sure, but it might not make for particularly rousing cinema in many cases.
Once you start doing engagements in a time frame where the US, UK/Commonwealth, or USSR could've been involved, it really depends on which perspective you choose to show. It just seems like there's a lot more of an appetite in the US for WWII films than there is for such films in the UK these days, so I'd expect to see more US-centric films to be made.
The only one I REALLY object to is
U-571. But I forgive that one because Jon Bon Jovi gets decapitated within the first few minutes of the film.
