Mission to Moscow (1943) User Reviews (55)

awful yet fascinating

[suttonstreet-imbd · 5/10 · 1 May 2010]

An odd little movie. "Mission to Moscow" was brought to my attention by a BBC documentary on Stalin in the war years "WWI Behind Closed Doors". It describes the intense diplomatic efforts made by the allies during WWII to bring the Soviet Union into the war against Germany. Leaders in the West were willing to cast a blind eye to Soviet brutality and repression, including the massacre of Polish military officers at Katyn and the establishment of puppet governments in the territories they controlled, in order to keep them on the side of the West. This effort involved swaying public opinion in Western countries, and Joseph Davies' "Mission to Moscow" was cited as an example of this effort. There is an excellent article on Davies in Wikipedia, which describes how keen he was to see only the positive in the Soviet Union. Ironies abound in this film. Molotov appears as a kindly old professorial gent, Stalin is a hopeful visionary yearning for world peace. The glimpses of daily life in the Soviet Union include ice skating parties with piles of food, high fashion for the ladies, English-speaking railroad workers with nothing but love for their country, and American expatriates expressing admiration for the inventiveness of the Russian hosts they are there to help. In fact, while Davies was ambassador, a large number of American expats were being imprisoned by Stalin as counter-revolutionaries, despite having voluntarily emigrated to the Soviet Union to contribute to building a new society. Many petitioned the US Embassy to have their passports restored, and Davies refused to intervene. At one point, the US embassy staff in Moscow threatened to resign en masse. When Stalin consolidated power with the purges of his former associates in 1936 ~ 1938, Davies attended several of the show trials, and in "Mission to Moscow" he is shown nodding knowingly when Bukharin and the other defendants "confess" to their anti-Soviet activities and conspiratorial association with the now arch-enemy Trotsky. In the movie, Davies repeatedly insists that his mission is to see the **real** Soviet Union first-hand, yet in his visits were said to have been highly scripted and organized by the Soviet authorities. In retrospect, Davies comes off as a naïve fool, but seen in the larger context, perhaps someone a little more competent would not have been able to supplied the West with the kind of pro-Soviet view Davies could supply.

But let's put history aside for a moment. This is just a bad film. It is stilted, over-scripted, and whatever points it is trying to make are spoon-fed to the audience. Davies had control over the final script, and his scenes come off as highly self-serving: Davies warning of the dangers of war over the objections of more experienced statesmen, Davies being congratulated at every turn by one world leader after the next for his insight into the coming war in Europe. You know pretty much at the beginning of each scene what is going to unfold – a vacation with the family to get away from world affairs ends with a phone call from the White House, a meeting with senators expressing doubt about the strength of Germany will end with Davies convincing them with facts to the contrary. And Walter Huston is just overworked here – he has to carry virtually every scene, because really, Mission to Moscow is mostly about Davies himself.

A just plain awful movie and yet fascinating to watch, especially for a glimpse into this brief period of time when the US actually tried to like Stalin, and fascinating also for the fantasy views of Soviet life in the late 1930s. And particularly worthwhile if you also take the time to research the persons and events portrayed in the movie and juxtapose these against the events portrayed in Mission to Moscow. It is a very educational experience.

At the time I saw this movie, it was not available on DVD, but could be downloaded from the Warner Brothers movie archive.

FDR's Man In The Kremlin

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 8 February 2009]

One of the most controversial films ever made, Mission To Moscow was not good for anyone's career who got involved with the making. Like Song Of Russia made over at MGM, Mission To Moscow was a film made specifically to improve Soviet-American relations in facing the common enemy they had.

The Soviet Union no matter how much the American Communist Party trumpeted their virtues, still had a real image problem in a lot of quarters due to the purges that Joseph Stalin conducted, due to the tremendous dislocation his five year plans created, due to the misery caused by the collectivization of agriculture and the systematic slaughter of Kulaks. Kulaks roughly translated could be anyone who owned a large estate to someone who might own a slightly bigger piece of land and maybe some farm animals. Stalin slaughtered thousands of them to force collectivization.

Our first ambassador to the Soviet Union was William C. Bullitt who was sent there in 1933. The Republican post World War I presidents did not diplomatically recognize the Soviet Union, Franklin Roosevelt's first foreign policy initiative was to extend recognition. Bullitt was a guy at first enthused, but then got very disillusioned by what he saw. He and FDR had a falling out and he left Moscow in 1936.

Joseph E. Davies was an industrialist and large Democratic contributor who did go back with FDR to the Wilson administration. He was appointed US Ambassador and after that became a cheerleader for the Soviets. As is shown in the film, Davies just blindly accepted every piece of propaganda handed to him. Films made in 1943 were not going to cast a critical light on the dark underside of Communist Russia.

Walter Huston dusts off his Sam Dodsworth persona to play Ambassador Davies. Ann Harding plays his dutiful wife and Eleanor Parker their daughter. Vladimir Sokoloff is President Kalinin, Gene Lockhart plays Prime Minister Molotov and Oscar Homolka plays Foreign Minister Litvinov all well known personalities of the day. In the Soviet Union like other countries Davies would have been required to present his credentials to the president and Russia did have a figurehead president who was a great deal less than Mission To Moscow makes him out.

At that time Joseph Stalin was only the Secretary of the Presidium of the Communist Party, but as such wielded the real power. The People's Republic of China adopted a similar set up that never changed with Mao Tse-tung as Party head and holding the real power while Mao lived.

Stalin is played by actor Manart Kippen and is only seen once as Davies is prepared to leave the Russian embassy. He's so shy and retiring the portrayal is so absolutely ludicrous that it leaves me laughing. But Davies sitting through the purge trials and accepting without question all the testimonies and forced confessions is also ludicrous.

After his time was up as Ambassador, Davies wrote the book on which this film was based and did go on a speaking tour promoting Russo-American cooperation. He was doing this on behalf of his friend and president FDR, but Davies had also become a real true believer in the 'miracle' that was Soviet Russia.

When the Cold War started three films became the targets of the House Un American Activities Committee, they were ripe targets that the conservative members were grateful for. The three films were The North Star from 20th Century Fox, Song Of Russia from MGM, and Mission To Moscow. None got more criticism than this one. Screenwriter Howard Koch who had won an Oscar this same year for Casablanca, earned a place on the blacklist because of Mission To Moscow. Whatever Koch's personal political convictions were, in this case all he did was translate to the screen what was in Davies's book.

Davies was held up to ridicule and in some measure deserved a bit of it because of Mission To Moscow. Time and the end of the Cold War have given us a proper perspective of the Russian contribution towards defeating the Nazis. In fact it was the lion's share in Europe. Policy decisions were made on the basis of keeping the Russians in the war before the Americans and British and respective allies got on the European continent with forces to make it a two front war, first in Italy and then in France. There was a justifiable fear that Stalin would make a separate peace with Hitler just as he signed the non-aggression pact with him before World War II started in 1939.

Of course the reports that Davies wrote off about the brutality of the Soviet Union were also true. The reactionaries had a field day with him, he was never taken seriously again. For that reason Mission To Moscow has not worn well either as history or entertainment.

If you like a film that glorifies and falsifies the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin then this is for you

[johno-21 · 4/10 · 12 June 2006]

This film was made to patronize Joeseph Stalin and warm USA audiences to American-Soviet relations. Warner boss Jack Warner called it the worst mistake of his career. Warner was a supporter of FDR and Roosevelt asked him to have this film made based on the 1941 book by former Ambassador to the USSR (1936-1938) Joseph E. Davies. Several films were made during this time to achieve the same effect like song of Russia, North Star and Counter Attack but this was a film for Stalin to see himself, hand delivered on a yet another mission to Moscow by Davies. This film portrays the brutal dictator Stalin as a fair and just man who has turned his backward country into a progressive industrial and agricultural giant that is moving toward democracy and desires peace and protection of it's borders. It mentions nothing of the one million deaths in the Soviet gulags that happened during Davies' ambassadorial tenure on his mission to Moscow. It glosses over the infamous purge show trials where Stalin rid himself of prominent party leaders where he had 50 of the 54 of the three trials executed under the guise of traitors who were conspiring with Germany and Japan to weaken the USSR. Stalin wanted absolute power but this film portrays these as fair and just trials. The costly Russo-Finnish War of 1939 is described by Davies as simply the Soviets wanting to annex Finland to protect Finland from the Nazi's. 23,000 Finns were killed and 43,000 wounded in this so-called effort to protect them. 127,000 Soviets were killed and 265,000 wounded. There is no mention of Stalin's man-made famine of the 1930's that resulted in the genocide of millions of Ukrainians. Stalin is portrayed as everybody's favorite uncle and FDR wanted Stalin to see how sympathetic we were to to him by having him actually view this film to maneuver a FDR-Stalin meeting in Alaska. FDR sent former Ambassador Davies on another mission to Moscow with this film and a message to Stalin from Roosevelt as to how much he respected him. Davies' successor in Moscow Ambassador William H. Standley was not in the loop on this mission and furious and resigned. Davies screened this film for Stalin. Stalin wasn't that impressed with the film or FDR's intentions and stalled on the Alaska summit. FDR was forced to send Secretary of State Cordell Hull to Moscow and Stalin agreed to a summit in Teheran instead of Alaska which would also include Winston Churchill who FDR didn't want for his proposed Alaska summit.

Michael Curtiz is the director and the film looks good from an artistic standpoint. Curtiz was best known for Casablanca and after starting out as an important European director in the teens and twenties he moved to Hollywood and became an important filmmaker. Howard Koch who wrote screenplays for such films as Casablanca adapted the Davies' book for the screen which later got him blacklisted from Hollywood. Bert Glendon who did such films as Hotel Imperial and The Ten Commandments in the 20's, Kidnapped and Young Mr. Linclon in the 30's and One Night in Lisbon and Our Town in the 40's is the film's cinematographer. This film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Art Direction and stars FDR's favorite actor Walter Huston as Ambassador Davies. Also in the talented cast are Ann Harding, George Tobias, Oscar Homolka, Eleanor Parker, Gene Lockhart, Frank Faylen and Cyd Charisse. You can enjoy the documentary style approach to this film and the skills of it's renowned filmmakers and big studio production but you can't get past a propaganda film that glorifies the Stalin dictatorship. I would give it a 4.5 out of 10.

Grand Propaganda Film, Hollywood Style

[jacksflicks · 6 April 2004]

Among the comments here I don't see much recognition of the fact that this propaganda film was released at the height of World War II, when the battle against Nazis was focused on Stalingrad, which arguably was the crucial battle of the war in Europe.

The context of this film cannot be ignored or minimized. Propaganda films are morale films, and the omissions and distortions which have been cited in Mission to Moscow are beside the point. Of course Stalin was a monster before, during and after World War II. Of course Joseph E. Davies was a naif, and a pompous one at that. Perhaps that's why he only lasted a year as ambassador.

On one hand, there is an absolutely ludicrous review here, praising Mission to Moscow as dispelling the terrible calumnies against the great Soviet achievements. On the other hand, there are those on the opposite side who, though far more accurate about Stalin and about how this film whitewashes his atrocities, seem so rabid in their responses, they fail to understand, or conveniently ignore, that propaganda films as documentaries are more or less bull, and that it's stupid to criticize a propaganda film because it's a propaganda film.

What is interesting about Mission to Moscow is not what it is trying to say or do, which requires little insight to divine, but how well it does it. This is a Hollywood "A" film enlisted in the service of propaganda. Top cast, direction and production values should have made for a very strong message to 1943 American audiences, whom the government wanted to think of the war against Germany as "We're all in this together."

As to the outrage of Stalin's show trials, I think that the sinister, menacing demeanor of one of the great Hollywood heavies Victor Francen as prosecutor Vyshinsky, versus the rather meek, contemplative demeanor of the defendants, suggests that the film knows what's going on, even if Davies doesn't.

Yes, the relentless pro-Soviet propaganda is a bit hard to take for those who sit smugly in the light of hindsight. But if you look at Mission to Moscow as document rather than documentary, you will gain an insight into the kind of public mindset called for by our government at a crucial moment in our history.

A bad, bad movie about a most useful idiot

[Rosabel · 1/10 · 31 October 1999]

This movie is a piece of fawning, pro-Stalin propaganda. The usual excuse for it, that it reflected patriotic sentiments of the era, can be equally applied to "Triumph of the Will" - there is no excuse for this lying travesty. Fakery follows fakery in this movie - the Ambassador's wife visiting Mrs. Molotov's perfume factory, and declaring the products superior to those of Paris; the Ambassador shaming his properly security-conscious subordinate by declaring it unthinkable that anyone in the Embassy would say anything that they'd be reluctant to say to Stalin's face; the buxom Soviet peasant woman chiding the Ambassador for effete American reluctance to have their women go down the coal mines the way "liberated" Russian women do. And these are only the comic relief. The serious scenes, such as the Moscow show trials, are just beyond pathetic, with the Ambassador commenting that the well-rehearsed confessions of the victims were uncoerced. In its whole-hearted praise of one of the bloodiest tyrants of the twentieth century, this movie is too corrupt and infuriating even to be funny.

Propaganda can be fun - this isn't!!!

[howdymax · 7/10 · 18 August 2001]

I can understand the need for pro-allied propaganda when the outcome of the war was still uncertain, but this was pathetic. It's no surprise that Howard Koch was the screenwriter for this rather sorry effort to promote Soviet propaganda, or that he was later cited by the HUAC. Propaganda can be fun - try North Star or Days of Glory. This movie is not an effort to raise morale or promote a cohesive war effort. It's purpose appears to try to justify any and all the barbaric atrocities committed during the Stalin regime. Example: The show trials were interspersed with remarks by allied journalists approving of the same judicial perversion for which we condemned Germany at Nueremburg. We agreed with the Soviet position that Trotsky was responsible for undermining the good works of the Soviet. We blame ourselves for the Russo-German alliance. The fact that Russia absorbed half of Poland in payment isn't discussed. This movie actually claims it was strategic move to buy time. Davies (Walter Huston) spends the entire movie trying to convince us that the Soviet Union performed a miracle, 5 yrs at a time. Big business is portrayed as greedy capitalists anxious to do business with Germany and Japan in pursuit of the Almighty buck. Russia invaded Finland as an act of self defense etc, etc. The examples are too numerous to mention.

Michael Curtiz' direction, as usual, is exciting and flawless. It is this movies' only saving grace. The early scene when Davies arrives at the Hamburg train station was precious. There are Swastikas everywhere. In typical Curtiz style, shadow troops marched passed the camera. Mein Kampf was for sale everywhere. Pathetic deportees are on the platform - number tags on their chest - waiting for transport to the camps. Hitler Youth marching like toy soldiers. If you can put the politics aside (I couldn't) you can really enjoy the visuals.

But beware, there was a message to this madness.

Strange Propaganda Film From Warner Bros

[Theo Robertson · 5/10 · 20 January 2010]

A few months ago I saw a documentary called BEHIND CLOSED DOORS which focused upon the machinations and political intrigue in the Kremlin during the second world war . A clip from MISSION TO MOSCOW was shown and is a habit of mine I decided to look it up on this site only to notice that despite being directed by the great Michael Curtiz it was lowly regarded but decided to track it down anyway

There's an old saying that " My enemy's enemy is my friend " and nothing proves this more than the second world war where the capitalist democracies of Britain and America supported the Soviet Union during the second world war . The film revolves around painting the Soviet Union as a country Britain and America can do business with and a key ally against the aggression of the Nazis and imperial Japanese . There's nothing wrong with this of course and 1943 had seen massive defeats for Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and Kursk which put the writing on the wall that Nazi Germany was going to lose the war

The problem with the film is that it doesn't celebrate the bloody victories won by Soviet blood but starts before the war where ambassador Joe Davies visits the USSR and finds it completely like the United States . Soviet workers only give a proportion of their pay to the state similar to taxation and there's even American advisers working in the socialist state who have become bored living on a diet of caviar The only real difference between Soviet Russia and America is that the Soviet state is being held back by a conspiracy involving Trotskyite agents and Nazis who are embarking on a campaign of sabotage against Stalinism . We know this must be true because it's pointed out by an American adviser and later Davies states that the trial of the saboteurs is no different from a trial held in the USA . There is no doubt that the defendants such as Tukhachevsky and Radek are guilty as charged . Davies says it's a fair trail so if an American says that it must be true

There is a bitter irony in portraying the Soviet Union is such a light and that was that the film was targeted as being communist propaganda in 1950 by the House Of Un-American Activities that led to Jack Warner himself being questioned by congress . It seems strange that nations suffer from a collective amnesia where politics is concerned . The film is nothing more than a propaganda piece for an anti- Nazi ally though not a very good one and remains a curiosity more than anything else

Historic

[markhaltom · 7/10 · 8 February 2009]

Historically accurate, this account brings to light some of the naive thinking many Americans had previous to WWII and even today as free nations tries to ferret out terrorist (subversives) just as Stalin did those officers within his military whom plotted to destroy the country. Would we Americans not demand any traitor plotting to commit sabotage upon one of our military installations be brought to justice? Yes, I believe we would, it's just a shame that the sentencing here isn't carried out as swiftly. Everyone should watch this film, Russia was our ally, without whom, Japan & Germany probably would have carved up this country much as we & Russia did Germany in the late '40s. Few people in the world today know just how close America stood to the edge of oblivion in 1940. Watch this film and learn, teach your children, for freedom is earned only by the blood of patriots, patriots who give all they have and all they will ever have so that freedom may rein.

A movie that makes you re-think black listing

[gracchi · 1/10 · 18 August 2001]

This movie is pure red propaganda. I sure hope Joseph Davies was not as naive and stupid as this movie portrays. Obviously it was important in 1943 to make movies with an anti-fascist slant, but that does not excuse this piece of left wing propaganda that glosses over the great soviet show trials of 1937-1938 (and Stalin's purges). To show Uncle Joe himself as a great humanitarian who just wanted peace - how pathetic. Since the USSR was a vital ally at the time this movie was made, maybe it would have been best not to have made this movie at all if we were afraid to offend the Soviets with the TRUTH. This movie ranks right up there with 'Battleship Potemkin' and 'Triumph of the Will' as big production propaganda (but it is not as well made). I am a little curious as to the future careers of people involved in this movie (were any of them black listed in the 1950's?). After seeing this film, it makes you think twice about the Hollywood black list in the 1950's. Perhaps a necessary evil during the cold war against leftist who could make Marxist-Stalinist crud like this movie. If you want to counter-act this left wing movie, I recommend 'The Green Berets' - a horrible piece of American right-wing propaganda.

WWII propaganda Hollywood style

[sol1218 · 7/10 · 22 August 2011]

Extremely pro-Stalin & Soviet Union movie made in Hollywood at the very hight of WWII when Germany was on the verge, during the battle of Stalingrad, of knocking the USSR out of the war. Based on the book "Mission to Moscow" by the former US Soviet Ambassador Joseph E.Davies, who in fact introduces the film, were shown how the Soviet Union under the leadership of Premier Joseph Stalin was the envy of the free world in it's heroic struggle against Nazi Germany. It was the Soviet Red Army who that during the course of the war lost an estimated 9 million of its fighting man and women battling Nazi Germany.

Given the job as Ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1937 by Pres. Roosevelt, Jack Young, Davies, Walter Huston, is given the assignment to check out what's going on in that country and report back to the president if it will be a reliable ally if a future conflict between Britian & France that breaks out with Nazi Germany. In what seems like no time at all Davies develops a love affair with the USSR and it's ruthless dictator Joseph or "Uncle Joe" as President Roosevelt calls him the Man of Steel himself Joseph V. Stalin played by the kind sweet and fatherly looking Mamart Kipper. The what seems like very naive Davies,who should have known better,is completely blown away by Uncle Joe's "great" accomplishments. That's in him bringing the backward and 19th century Russia into the 20th century with his series of 5 year economic plans. Plans not originated by "Uncle Joe" but his late boss and first leader of the Soviet Union Nickolai 'Nicky" Lennin.

Even though very pro-Stalin the movie surprisingly doesn't skip over the notorious 1937/38 purge trials conducted by Stailn's henchmen in the Soviet Ministry of Justice and the dreaded NKVD. It was at those trials that the almost entire Soviet diplomatic and Red Army office corps were convicted and executed for treason. They were all accused in them planning with the exiled and deposed, by Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Sam Goldenberg, with the Hitler's Germany and Imperial Japan of trying to undermined and overthrow the Stalin regime. As It turned it wasn't treason that they were guilty of but Stalin's hysterical paranoia of feeling threatened by anyone close to him trying to throw him out of power!

The movie goes on making excuse after excuse for Stalin's crimes,like the invasions of Poland Finland and the Baltic States,in that they were needed to get his country ready for the coming invasion by Hitler's Germany which he was certain was soon to come. Yet when the Nazi invasion finally came in June 1941 Stalin's well prepared for it Red Army was caught flat-footed having the German Army reach the very gates of Moscow before the year was out. Davies now back in the US and a private citizen does his best to get the American people, who at the time was very isolationist, ready to both supply the Soviet Union with military hardware as well as join it in it's battle against Germany. But as fate would have it it was japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, six months after Hitler invaded the USSR, that did the trick for both him and President Roosevelt. It was Pres.Roosevelt who's behind the scenes actions was doing everything to incite a German U-Boat attack on US shipping in order to get the US into the war. What was so ironic about that is that it was Hitler's Germany who did everything possible to avoid a conflict with the USA, even having his U-boats not return fire after being fired upon by the US Navy, not the US that was the first to declare war!

Despite the Soviet Union being an ally of the US at the time of the films release it in fact bombed at the box office not even making back half of the 1.5 million dollars it took to produce it. when shown to Russian audiences in Moscow people watching it, in them knowing what a horror "Uncle Joe" Stalin really was, could't refrain from laughing out load when ever Davies showed his enthusiasm for the Stalin regime as well as "Uncle Joe" himself! Even if it meant a one way ticket to a Siberian gulag or Soviet firing squad if they were ever identified,with the lights in the theater turned on, of showing disrespect to "Uncle Joe" and his "great" accomplishments for the Russian people!

P.S No matter how ridicules and historically inaccurate,in covering up Stalin's crimes, the film "Mission to Moscow" is the one thing it got right is that without the help of the USSR the US and its western allies would have never won the war against Nazi Germany. According to official German casualty statistics the German military lost an astounding 2,400,000 killed and missing together with almost 3,500,000 wounded in the fighting on the Eastern or Russian front alone! And that's only up to November 30, 1944 when the German military stopped keeping casualties statistics! That's without even counting the enormous losses that the German army suffered fighting against the Red Army from December 1944 to the end of the war in May 1945! Those tremendous losses of manpower as well as military equipment against the Soviet Union would have fully equipped and manned as much as 400 Nazi infantry and armored divisions! A German army of almost 6 million strong which could have been thrown against the US Britain and their allies in not only North Africa and Italy but in the savage and bloody battles of Western Europe in 1944/5 which would have well turned the tied of battle in Hitler's favor! In fact there would have been no possibility of a Western Front without an Eastern Front tying down as much as 80% of the German Army needed to engage the advancing some 8 to 10 million strong Red Army!

The first casualty of war is truth

[Mark-Rhoads2 · 1/10 · 18 February 2006]

Both the book, "Mission to Moscow" by the late Ambassador Joseph M. Davies, and this film, are severe attacks on intellectual honesty. Near the conclusion, the narrator speaks over a scene with the flags of members of the United Nations starting with the flags of the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, and "all the world's free nations."

Wow. To imply that the U.S.S.R. under Marshal Joseph Stalin was anywhere close to "a free nation" is as breathtakingly dishonest as any author or screen writer can be.

Now it is true that many Americans did not like Russia under Stalin and it is true that FDR wanted to justify American aid for the Russian Army because it was fighting on a second front to defeat Nazi Germany. It is also true that the Russian people suffered terribly, more than any other nation, from Hitler's attacks. The loss of Russian life, both military and civilian, on the eastern front was massive beyond comprehension. As bad as Londoners suffered during the blitz, Russian people suffered much greater loss of life.

But none of that justifies the incredible pro-Soviet lies in this film. Lies such as one where Ambassador Joe Davies, played by Walter Huston, justifies the Russian invasion of Finland by saying it was self defense. Lies such as Davies saying that it was British delays that would drive Stalin "into Hitler's arms." There was plenty of duplicity in both Moscow and Berlin over the shared occupation of Poland when the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact (mutual non-aggression treaty) was signed by Germany and the U.S.S.R. in 1939.

There are repeated references in the film by Huston as the narrator, by a "voice" of President Roosevelt, and by others to "pro-fascist" propaganda as being responsible for anti-Russian feelings in the U.S. Without any help from Hitler, many Americans in the late 1930s saw the Stalin state for what it was, a repressive monstrosity. A humorous but dark view of the U.S.S.R. was on display in "Ninotchka" in 1939 starring Greta Garbo and Melvyn Douglas directed by the great Ernst Lubitsch. A similar 1940 film was "Comrade X" starring Clark Gable and Hedy Lamarr directed by King Vidor. Those stereo-typical views, also mild distortions, still came far closer to the truth about the Stalin government than this 1943 film did.

There is a side issue in some user comments about the screen writer Howard Koch and whether or not he was fairly treated as a "black listed" writer in the 1950s when he and his wife wrote under different names in England. Whatever the merits or demerits of that separate debate may be, the writing in this film is not only laboriously pro-Soviet, direct from the party line, but it is also stilted. Almost every monologue by Walter Huston as Davies is a speech that constantly recovers familiar Communist Party talking points of that era.

It is rumored that FDR wanted this film to be made based on the book in an effort to drum up public support in America for the allied effort. This might be true. But by the time the film came out in 1943, American public opinion had already made its peace with the idea of a temporary tactical alliance with Russia for the limited purpose of defeating Hitler. That is why this film's blatant pro-Soviet drum beating is so puzzling even in the context of World War II and in 1943.

Americans understood that, as Churchill put it, if Hitler invaded Hell we would say nice things about the devil. Perhaps a hundred years from now, the crimes of Joseph Stalin will be as famous as those of Hitler. But in 1943, it was in the interest of the grand alliance that American films downplay Soviet crimes and praise the bravery of Soviet troops. The latter effort was honest, the former was not.

Even so, this film went way too far. One can legitimately admire the Russian people themselves and their army for a valiant struggle against the Wehrmacht without fawning over a cowardly, drunk, and militarily-stupid Stalin. The film even fawns over the always lovable Vyacheslav Molotov (of Molotov Cocktail fame) so improbably played by Gene Lockhart (of Bob Cratchett and the judge in Miracle on 34th Street fame).

There is the key difference. Davies was not just pro-Russian in the context of a necessary war time alliance. Davies used the war as his excuse to become an all out an apologist for the repressive Communist dictatorship of the U.S.S.R. and rationalized everything that government did no matter what. Whether he was a dupe or just a gullible fellow traveler is beside the point. It is the extreme extent of the ideological rationalizations that makes this film so dishonest.

Finally the TRUTH

[geraldjones1959 · 10/10 · 18 February 2006]

I was hesitant to watch this movie when it played on Cable recently, but I am glad I decided to take a look. The role of the USSR in saving Europe has always been denied by the utter arrogance of US and British hubris, but here is the truth at last.

The heroic efforts of the Soviet Union are exposed to the viewer and all the later years of propaganda from the likes of Joe McCarthy are shown as the lies they are - You can thank Stalin that you are not speaking German today and this excellent movie shows you why!

It is a bit long, but it is well worth the time spent in watching it. Be prepared to change your mind about all the crap you learned in school...and remember this movie was made by Warner Brothers, NOT the Kremlin!

Oh the rantings of the neo-Nazi set after I posted the above!!!! The fall of the "evil" Soviet Empire has given rise to the Isalmic threat, I guess maybe all of you fascists were wrong about the USSR liberation of Afghanistan - YOU people put in the very regime that gave rise to terrorism - thanks ever so much, don't think you will be remembered in the history books when the West submits to Islam!

This IS a well made movie

[richard-1787 · 7/10 · 30 January 2017]

I'm surprised at how low this movie's rating is on here. It's a well-made and very interesting film.

Yes, of course, it is pure propaganda. It whitewashes the atrocities of Stalin's Soviet Union almost completely to convince Americans that the USSR was a good ally. As, in fact, it was during the war, if not, of course, after the war. The picture it paints of Russia bears little resemblance to reality.

But look at the picture it paints of the U.S. in 1940 and 1941 before Pearl Harbor. Isolationists in Congress who impeded Roosevelt's efforts to rearm the nation for a conflict that anyone but a fool should have seen coming.

Yes, this movie glorifies Ambassador Davis. But, as it shows, too many Americans were isolationists, and they needed to be convinced, over and over again, that we could not remain isolationists and survive.

Walter Huston gives a great performance here as Davis. Whether the real Davis was as blind to Russia's failings as the character in the movie, I can't say. But this movie gives a powerfully accurate picture of why World War II took place, how it could have been avoided, and why appeasement never works.

There are still lessons to be learned from this movie.

This was probably dull in 1943, but in the 21st Century it's really deadly dull and dated.

[secondtake · 4/10 · 5 November 2014]

Mission to Moscow (1943)

What a bore, a laugh, an epic squandering. There is competance, of course—it's a Warner Bros. film in the 1940s with Michael Curtiz directing—but it's so burdened by its message it never becomes an actual movie about conflicts, characters, and plot.

It's pure propaganda. Knowing that, you can watch it with historic curiosity. It is, truly, weird enough to warrant a look if you follow the Roosevelt/Stalin comparison, and the general American attitude to the Soviet Union in the 1940s.

You will, however, get bored. It begins with a series of speeches, including an opening explanation by the author of the book the movie builds on. Even when the scenes have some interest, as when the diplomatic family tours the USSR, there is such an obvious attempt to make the Russians wonderful people with a terrific political system it turns your stomach. Not that I need to agree or disagree, I just don't want to be preached to.

And so it goes. There are factory visits, parades, ballroom affairs, and lots of preachy talking. It's impossible to care or get absorbed, but it is revealing of one large oddity of WWII: the need of the US to work alongside the USSR in defeating Hitler. The Germans come off badly, of course (the trains are so efficient they won't wait for people who get to the platform late). The Japanese even worse, caricatures who have made a mess of China. The second half of the movie is a different beast, a kind of judicial series of confrontations. It also has the feel of "information" instead of drama. It's well made, fairly well films and edited with clarity, but it can't make a silk purse out of you know what.

Warner Bros. fans might enjoy the appearance of an amazing number of actors. Because of all the shifting scenes from country to country, there was a need for a great number of secondary but familiar actors, like the detective from "Mildred Pierce." A good half the actors will seem familiar, even if you can't place what movies you've seen them in. If you love Curtiz (the reason I watched), you'll have trouble seeing his brilliance.

Finally, we might expect some kind of political revelation here—and what we see is a kind of admirable but perhaps naive American acting as ambassador to the USSR in the late 1930s. That's the guy who wrote the book, Joseph Davies, and you can see all these good intentions and homespun (Wisconsin style) Americanisms. It doesn't hold up well against the tough characters he was up against all around, from Stalin to Churchill.

So, was Ambassador Davies duped by the Russians?

[Varlaam · 21 April 1999]

Is that why he put forward this saccharine view of the Soviet Union? It was done sincerely and naively, was it?

I remember this -- the 1943 film version of Ambassador Davies' book -- as quite dull, in spite of its obvious historical and political interest, from when I last saw it a number of years ago. In the notes I took down at the time, I have the film labelled as "disturbing propaganda" and cite two choice quotations:

"At least, one European nation with no aggressive intentions is ready for whatever comes", exclaims Ambassador Davies (as portrayed by Walter Huston).

According to a Soviet minister, "The army is strengthened by the purge of its traitors."

(Stalin almost succeeded in strengthening his army right out of existence.)

Amazon lists a couple of scholarly titles specific to the Ambassador Davies controversy. Perhaps this film will whet your appetite for a little more background.

An Astonishing Film

[kellyadmirer · 5/10 · 21 January 2010]

This is one of the most astonishing films I've ever seen, not because of the content, but because of what it reveals about its subject. That would be one Joseph E. Davies, chosen by President Franklin Roosevelt before World War II as one of his personal ambassadors to the Soviet Union. FDR believed in the personal touch when dealing with other countries, so he would send his untrained cronies overseas for little fact-finding missions. Wendell Wilkie, for instance, went on one such mission at the height of the war. This film shows how well this tactic worked out.

This film records Davies' grand tour of Europe in the crucial 1937-1939 period. It opens with the real Davies giving a heartfelt (and very long) speech in which he describes himself as God-fearing and so forth (i.e., not a Communist). Then we segue to the actor playing Davies, Walter Huston, and follow his increasingly odd journey in which he talks to all the movers and shakers in Europe at the time (with the notable exception of Hitler, who refused to see him because he was "so busy," presumably planning his next invasion).

Now, this film was intended as a pure documentary of what Davies saw and learned. Davies himself obviously approved every single scene and every piece of dialog. That is what makes this film so astonishing.

Astonishing because Davies is revealed to be an absolute bumbler and inept fool who had no business touring Europe, much less representing the United States or having his opinions used to any purpose by the United States government. There are so many jaw-dropping moments that one almost begins to think this was a parody. But, alas, it was no parody, this is the actual sort of information that the US had about Europe on the eve of a war in which more than 20 million people died.

Davies laps up whatever fiction is served to him, and uses each morsel to regurgitate wrongheaded pronouncements about the state of the world. Virtually every conclusion he utters is based on information spoon-fed to him by people purposefully deceiving him. The truth about what was going on around him was discoverable, but he never bothers. As such, this film documents just how taken in Davies was by the Soviets, or put another way, how successful the Soviets were in snookering the naive American.

Let's give a few examples. Davies makes a big deal about "finding out" that Soviet factories were being sabotaged by opponents to Stalin (generically referred to as Trotskyites). Conveniently, these "saboteurs" were rounded up during his stay and put on trial. When some of his associates start questioning what is really going on, Davies piously opines, "We'd all just better wait for the trial so we can learn the real facts." Ha! Innocent abroad indeed. Indoctrinated in the US legal system, which was actually designed to get at the truth of a matter, Davies obviously had no idea what a Soviet show trial was all about. Obviously, as proved later, it was all an elaborate set-up. Soviet Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky had become too big for his britches, and Stalin wanted him dead, so he concocted the whole story about sabotage for Davies' (and everyone else's) benefit. Davies sits there, lapping up every lying word of it, unquestioning and practically inert intellectually.

At another moment, Davies' security people worry that their quarters may be bugged. They want to check the place out. But no, Davies will have none of it. "Let's give them the benefit of the doubt," he decides. One physically gasps when seeing this. Yes, this is the guy I want representing American interests abroad.

There are all sorts of propaganda moments that are delightful in their naiveté. The Soviets obviously put on a real show of their military might for the stupid American, with some particularly nice flourishes. A big deal is made in the film of the fact that there are women soldiers, women paratroopers, women this and that. This must have been to give an appearance of some kind of monolithic quality to Soviet forces. Yet students of the war will search in vain for the exploits of these hordes of Amazon warriors. It was all a show, kind of like those given at the Bolshoi. Hermann Goering bragged about doing the same thing to foreign visitors, it was a fairly common tactic among sophisticated diplomats. Somebody with a penetrating mind might have seen through such shenanigans, but that was asking too much of Davies.

Anyway, the film is such a farce that it's fascinating. Stalin looks so pleased with himself after feeding Davies more lies, lighting his pipe and smirking. Now we realize he wasn't happy because he had found such a fine fellow. Instead, he would have been smirking because he realized he had found the ultimate sucker. FDR himself caused the West endless grief at Yalta because he acted similarly to Davies, just "giving them the benefit of the doubt" and so forth. Stalin is said to have thought little of this film, and it is painfully clear why. He must have been embarrassed at the sheer ridiculousness of it, his choreographed charade immortalized on celluloid. It's possible that observing the sheer stupidity of the West may have contributed to his thinking he had more in common with the decidedly not-naive Hitler, leading to the Nazi-Soviet pact mentioned in the film (and explained away by Davies as Stalin just protecting his country, yeah, I'll buy that for $100, Alex).

Worth watching for a hoot, and to see how a reputation can be gutted by a person's own hand. I enjoyed it, but it also is agonizing seeing how much a fool it makes Davies look.

Interesting film, if politically naive

[Andy-296 · 7/10 · 25 August 2015]

This 1943 film has an infamous reputation as the worst of the pro Soviet films Hollywood made during World War II. Based on the memoirs of Joseph Davies (who was ambassador to the Soviet Union at the height of the Stalinist purges of the 1930s and appears as himself in the embarrassing movie intro), it is mind numbingly naïve about the nature of Stalinist Russia. The most ridiculous part of the movie is surely its depiction of the Moscow trials of 1937, where the defendants, portrayed as witless, cowardly thugs (except for Bukharin, which looks like an evil genius), are shown as unquestionably guilty. But even the Stalin-Hitler pact of 1939 and the Soviet invasion of Finland later that year are defended here.

Its monumental naivete aside, it is kind of well done, in the sense that it was filmed competently (by Michael Curtiz, who directed Casablanca among many other films) and is politically embarrassing but never boring. Stalin reportedly liked the movie and had it shown several times in his private Kremlin screening room to his Politburo buddies. Walter Huston played ambassador Davies. Many little known character actors play the different Soviet politicians, and they were obviously hired due to the physical resemblance to the characters they were playing.

historically speaking, this movie is crap

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 12 December 2005]

Up until WWII, most Americans (and particularly Hollywood) looked to Soviet Russia with, at best, fear. While the true extent of the brutality and human rights violations of the Stalinist regime were still not fully comprehended, there was great fear that the Russians were bent on world domination. BUT, with the entry of the United States into WWII, the Russians, our previous enemy, was now our ally. And, to engender support for this new ally, Hollywood created a fictionalized version of the Russians--portraying them as brave and loyal and almost super-human. While some of these qualities were no doubt true of those who heroically fought the Nazis, many simply fought for survival and chose to protect their own evil regime because it seemed less evil than the Germans--or because they were murdered by their own KGB troops if they did not fight. However, in Mission to Moscow, none of this is apparent. Instead, the Hollywoodized version of the Russians is given and their government, it seems, is freedom-loving and decent! What a lie. Because of this, the movie ONLY has value as a historical curiosity as propaganda. I would be very afraid someone might view it today and take it for fact instead of complete fiction. Despite this movie's attempts to portray it otherwise, Stalinism ranks as one of the greatest evils in human history.

False propaganda may have helped do in Eastern Europe

[SimonJack · 6/10 · 30 June 2017]

What nation in history conducted a propaganda campaign to glorify another nation that it would then spend hundreds of billions of dollars to defend itself against? Or that would spend more than $5 trillion in a nuclear arms race? To those reading this review, the answer is obvious. The U. S. is the only country ever to produce so much propaganda in support of another nation that would soon oppose it. And, that's one of the unique things about this film. "Mission to Moscow" was the first of several Hollywood films to portray Soviet Russia as our good neighbor. The second thing about the film is that it was a sham.

This isn't to knock propaganda, which has been used forever. For a good discussion of propaganda and its use, see the review by jacksflicks from Hollywood on April 6, 2004. The performances and film qualities of this movie are okay, but nothing special. It has a cast of prominent actors, as do most of the films that followed. But, why was a major propaganda effort launched then? Warner Brothers made this film at the behest of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. He wanted a movie made from the book by his former ambassador, Walter Davies. That book glamorized the Soviet Union in 1938. But it was a lie, and FDR knew it. Davies supervised the script and everything about the film. The War Department then prevailed on other Hollywood studios to make pro- Soviet movies.

After "Mission to Moscow" came out on April 28, 1943, a string of films followed. Columbia released "The Boy from Stalingrad" on May 20 of that year. Samuel Goldwyn and RKO Pictures put out "The North Star" on Nov. 4. The U. S. War Department made a full-length documentary on Nov. 11 that was filmed by a U. S. Army unit in Russia. Three more full-length Hollywood films followed in 1944: "Three Russian Girls" by United Artists on Jan. 14, "Song of Russia" by MGM on February 10, and "Days of Glory" by RKO on June 16, 1944.

Most of these films are just fair. But they are unlike any of the other war films being made about resistance fighters and underground forces in other countries. These clearly are propaganda films. But why were they being made by the U. S. to promote another country way into the war? We no longer needed to build American support for Russia, or to urge the Soviets to enter the war on our side. We already had both.

Russia was in the war since Germany invaded it on June 22, 1941. It now made the second front that the Allies wanted. England had been sending armaments and supplies to Russia. And, the Russians had stalled the Germans since Aug. 23, 1942, and then defeated them in the Battle of Stalingrad on Feb. 2, 1943. The Allies were winning elsewhere. Germany had lost the Battle of Britain in 1940, and it was fast losing the air war everywhere. The Allies had been bombing Berlin since 1940. They defeated the Germans at the Second Battle of El Alamein on Nov. 11, 1942, and German surrender in Africa would come on May 13, 1943. That was just nine days before this film was released.

So, there clearly was no need for a new propaganda push by the U. S. in support of Soviet Russia. Unless there were other reasons FDR wanted Americans to have friendly feelings toward the Soviets? Because, once Germany was defeated, public concern would then turn its gaze on communism. So, if Americans would not be wary of Russia, there probably wouldn't be much concern about Europe after the war. Germany, of course, being the exception. Well, that's how it turned out.

Winston Churchill coined the phrase "Iron Curtain" for the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. That was in a speech he gave on March 5, 1946, at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. Churchill had been a strong advocate for the freedom of eastern Europe after the war, especially Poland. Some 200,000 Polish soldiers were serving under the British Army. The Yalta Conference of February 4-11, 1945, was to determine the fate of Europe after the war. It was supposed to give self-determination to the people liberated from Nazi Europe. FDR, Churchill and Stalin all agreed to this.

But FDR granted concessions to the Soviets, and Churchill went along. Stalin put in place communist governments in all of Eastern Europe. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, the Baltic States and others would now be part of the Soviet Union, along with East Germany. Stalin hoodwinked the Allies and they didn't lift a finger to stop him. The Allies gave the shaft to the people of Eastern Europe. Was Gen. George Patton right after all - about the Soviets?

Many in England saw this as a betrayal of Poland. It likely contributed to Churchill's election loss at war's end. At the Potsdam Conference in July, the Soviets denied that they were interfering in the affairs of Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. And that was that. Back in the U. S., little care was paid to the fate of the Eastern Europeans. After all, everyone knew how good, decent and trustworthy the Soviets were. We had seen it in all these films and our government, Hollywood and the news media wouldn't lie to us, would they?

Just think! If all those countries freely had been able to set up their own governments, the Soviet Union would have been much less powerful. It would have many more countries to face. Maybe there wouldn't have been a Cold War at all. Maybe not a nuclear arms race. Would the world have been better if America's leaders, Hollywood and the news media had supported the truth instead of lies? Many thousands of murdered Eastern Europeans and millions of people who were oppressed for half a century would probably think so.

Wreckers and saboteurs

[Henry-59 · 2/10 · 4 June 2013]

The flaws in this film are gigantic and obvious. The scenes of the show trials, to take one example, not only falsify history, but come off as so flat and awkward as to make it impossible to believe any of the confessions. Which makes me wonder: was this just bad writing by an otherwise gifted screenwriter or deliberate sabotage?

We know this much: that Davies had final script approval. It shows: he is in every scene and given the last word on every subject. You can imagine him standing over Howard Koch's shoulder, insisting on rewriting this scene and adding extra touches to another. All this must have been maddening to a professional writer at the pinnacle of his career.

Which leads to my pet theory: that Koch exacted his revenge by making Davies look like a fool. While the film may appear to be painting Davies in a positive light – it would be hard for him not to be at least likable with Walter Huston playing him – a closer viewing depicts him not only as naïve and gullible, but also self-centered and vain.

What else do we make of those scenes – and they keep recurring – in which various Soviet figures tell Davies how insightful, open and honest he was? Davies, of course, never disagrees, but instead launches into another speech in which he assures his friends that he will tell America or the world what's really going on in the Soviet Union. Whether Davies realized it or not, the film shows him as someone who only needs to be tickled under the chin in order to be seduced.

Which brings us back to the show trial scenes. Bukharin did as much as he could to defeat Vyshinsky by admitting as much as he had to in order to save his family but denying whatever else he could, while dropping broad hints that none of what he was saying was true. Koch's script does something similar: the confessions of Radek, Bukharin, Yagoda and the rest sound canned and unconvincing and the defendants themselves look more like defeated party functionaries than conspirators. Which is, of course, the truth—it's just not advertised as such.

Seductive propaganda

[dexter-10 · 5/10 · 24 February 2000]

As with most propaganda films, the viewer must put aside any political likes or dislikes or be drawn into the controversy surrounding the Davies mission. Then, and only then, can any value be drawn from this docu-drama, for even in propaganda there is truth if one knows how to ferret facts from distortions. For example, as the film illustrates, there were Hitler Youth marching through German cities, there were Soviet army purges, there was an enormous Soviet industrial capacity that was portable, and there was convertible tractor to tank production in Russia. In a real sense, this film is a case study in how documentary material can be woven into dramatic content. By viewing it, can one learn to sort fact from fancy. The more who see this film, the better. One soon realizes that the documentary film is the testimony to history, not the distorted editorialising.

One puzzling question: Why was this film made? By January of 1943 President Roosevelt said that the Axis powers had to win the war in 1942 or lose everything. A 1943 movie about what transpired in 1936 to 1938 makes little strategic or political sense. As Davies says in the film: "I wish I had three heads and six pairs of eyes."

Good for representing attitudes at that time

[tlg500 · 8/10 · 25 July 1999]

Some of the newsreel footage can easily be fastforwarded. The trial scene is hard to believe that Americans would really believe that Stalin was right to round up his officers. Walter Huston is always a delight. The story holds your interest. Although, it does make the hero look a little too good. With hindsight, we see that he made many more mistakes than he admits to.

Terrible film, but not for the reasons you might expect.

[DarthVoorhees · 1/10 · 5 April 2010]

Joseph Stalin certainly wasn't a builder for the betterment of mankind, the millions he sent to the gulag are a testament to that. 'Mission to Moscow' is a terrible film, but not because it tries to glamorize Joseph Stalin. If someone wanted to make a film canonizing Stalin I'd say all the power to him. Art is a concept deeper than political ideology. I'd have no problem giving a good review to a film that thought highly of Stalin, the problem is 'Mission to Moscow' isn't a good film.

The problem with 'Mission to Moscow' is that it assumes it's audience is incredibly stupid. One general rule about propaganda is that the audience should be able to suspend their preconceptions to be subjected to it's message. You know while watching 'Mission to Moscow' that you are watching a propaganda piece. Compare that to say 'Saving Private Ryan' which is a very good film, but has a blatant fetish for the military. Or if we wanted to stay in the realm of the Soviet Union any of Sergei Eisenstein's films. Even a film critic that believes Communism is a philosophical evil will say that "October" or "Battleship Potemkin" are great cinematic achievements. 'Mission to Moscow' goes for cheap emotional triggers. The performances are so over the top and tongue in cheek to have any credibility to them whatsoever. The fourth wall is consistently broken. Walter Huston who was by all accounts a very capable actor is terrible in this picture, but then again what could he have done with this terrible script? Americans are more susceptible to images than they are to anything else. If 'Mission to Moscow' wanted to truly glamorize the Soviets it wouldn't have Huston narrate everything. Images are more powerful than words with propaganda.

And if we want to talk about negative propaganda, why don't we talk about how the film portrays FDR? Franklin Roosevelt has an almost Stalinist Cult of Personality in this film. We aren't even allowed to see his face. The only thing Stalin and Joseph Davies can agree about America is that it has "a great President". If you learn one thing from the terrors of Stalinist Cult of Personality in Russia learn this, no man or political ideology is God like.

A useful antidote to much of the anti-Soviet propaganda by the conservative American press during the early years of the anti-Nazi war, though a bit overdone.

[louisgodena · 10 June 2001]

Self-professed "capitalist" and businessman Joseph Davies is sent to Moscow by President FDR just prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Europe in 1939. His mission; assess the war-readiness of the Soviet people and the reliability of the Stalin regime as a potential ally.

What follows could be described as a "guided tour" of Soviet Russia, courtesy of the Kremlin. Davies embarks on a whirlwind inspection of Soviet farms, factories, schools and cities, all abuzz with the task of transforming a semi-feudal nation of serfs and peasants into a mighty world power. It is - as its critics claim - a heavy-handed glorification of the Soviet "workers" state under Stalin. At the same time, it is an early confirmation of what most recent historians have acknowledged; the Stalin regime, for all its flaws, was a popular regime with the Russian people with astounding achievements to its credit. Viewers, at any rate, can make up their own minds (a useful recent survey is *Stalinism as a Way of Life* - Yale U Press, 2000).

Walter Huston is effective as the droll, efficient Davies. Watch, too, for a plethora of uncredited "B" actors on screen for just a few seconds. Glenn Strange, Tom Tully and Kathleen Lockhart are familiar faces to fans of the thirties and forties and serve to jar us back to reality at critical points. The film is a useful antidote to the overwhelming and omnipotent anti-Sovietism of the Cold War, and should be taken as such.

Popular with the people: That's what counts

[Scrivener3000 · 2/10 · 12 July 2005]

". . .the Stalin regime, for all its flaws, was a popular regime with the Russian people with astounding achievements to its credit. . ." wrote a previous reviewer.

How true! And much the same could be said for the Hitler regime, which was also a popular one, and had many remarkable achievements to its credit as well.

"With all its flaws." Yes, there were some unpleasant moments under Stalin: The reign of terror, the show-trials, the midnight arrests of dissidents, the mass deportations, the calculated murder by starvation of at least 10 million people, and the slave-labor camps. In the movie, these matters would have interfered with the pacing, editing, and overall thrust of the message, so they ended up on the cutting-room floor.

Still, as long as it was popular with the people, or at least with those who survived it, that's what counts.

--Scrivener3000