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 who were oppressed for half a century would probably think so.

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.

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.

FOR MANY YEARS now, more than we care to admit to, we we have heard tales about this film and how it was virtually commissioned by the Roosevelt Administration as a Wartime propaganda piece; only to be indicted as an example of a great pro-communist sales pitch in those years after World War II. Finally, on the evening of January 21st In the Year of Our Lord 2010,we finally got to eyeball the film and make up our own mind.THAT WE SHOULD bear in mind that it was produced during the uncertainty of World War II, for a public skeptical about alliance with the Soviets; is paramount in our minds. It is with this attitude that we proceed in our sentimental journey into the world according to Warner Brothers.THERE WILL ALWAYS be questions asked later of how could we have such unprincipled allies; who stand for just about everything that is contrary to our way of life? The answer which we should always bear in mind is, perhaps highly simplistic; but oh so true. Be it the Western Allies with "Uncle Joe" (Stalin), or a sort of "Lend Lease" in the Middle East in the 1980's for Sadaam Houssein's Iraqui Forces in their war with Iran and the Ayatollah Khomanei, our old stand-by proverb stands true; that being: "Politics makes for Strange Bedfellows." Another that we like is, "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend." WITH REGARDS TO the film, today's honoree, MISSION TO MOSCOW (Warner Brothers, 1943) we see what is a first class production of a finely made picture. There is no expense spared in its making. Master Director, Michael Curtiz, does a smooth, nearly flawless technical presentation on the screen. The sets are done up in an extra realistic style; rendering a great cinematic glimpse into Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and others. This, when coupled with some expertly executed cutting in of newsreel footage of Hitler, Stalin and the ceremonies in Germany as well as Mayday in Moscow.THE CAST ASSEMBLED is also top notch; although many appear in the sort of roles that could only be described as being against type. Gene Lockart, for example, is unable to bring the touch of humor and underlying warmth to his role as Premier Malotov (!!!), that he usually has had in outings such as THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON, MEET JOHN DOE and GOING MY WAY. Still, his Molotov (he of the "Molotov Cocktail" fame)still makes a screen image for the old Bolshevik as an equivalent of New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia; you know, a guy who read the daily comic strips to everyone over the Radio during a newspaper strike.FURTHERMORE, THE SYRUPY treatment of all things that are Soviet is made even more sophomoric when contrasted with the treatment of the Nazi Germans; who are all (truthfully)patterned on the sadistic, brutal thugs that they were. A most interesting point/counter point is found in their portrayals of Molotov (Gene Lockhart) and the German Foreign Minister von Ribbentropp (Henry Daniell). We have Mr. Lockhart's sincere civil servant vs. Mr. Daniell's slimy, back-stabbing, treacherous Nazi Minister. (A real "see you next time" kind of a guy.)ALTHOUGH THE TWO don't meet in the movie, in reality they were responsible for the Molotov-von Ribbentropp Treaty of 1939. Usually referred to as their Non-Aggression Pact, this piece of international skulduggery not only made allies of two avowed enemy political philosophies; but also sealed Poland's fate as Russian forces invaded Poland from the east as partners of Hitler's minions in carving the 11 year old Polish Republic by moving up to their old pre World War I borders.THIS ALSO CLEARED the way for Joe Stalin to annex the 3 Baltic independent Republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia; as well as the Soviet's invasion of Finland, which gave the Red Army more than they ever expected in their war.* ANOTHER OBVIOUS MARK of a Warner Brothers production was the presence of many members of what has been called, "Warners Stock Company". This included such familiar names and mainly faces such as: George Tobias, Helmut Dantine, Moroni Olson, Vladinir Sokoloff, Louis Jean Heidt, Frank Ferguson,Pat O'Malley,Virginia Christine, Gino Corrado,James Flavin, etc. We were looking for Alan Hale, Allen Jenkins, Frank McHugh and Jack Carson.ANOTHER POINT ABOUT the general look and feel of much of the film is almost that of one of those MGM Travelogues. The scenes along with the sappy, syrupy narrative makes one want to go to Russia right away; or at least duplicate their successes on our shores.AS A CLOSING POINT, we have been puzzled for many years over the way in which the House Committee on Un-American Activities has been vilified when it comes to their investigation of the Left Wing's attachment for and involvement with the Communist Party; but never criticized for its probing of movements such as the German-American Bund and Nazi Espionage from 1935 to our entering the War in 1941. Aren't both of these totalitarian forms of government a threat to freedom where ever they arise? NOTE * Nothing is said about Soviet treachery and the fact that they were allies with the Axis in carving up eastern Europe. Their unwarranted attack on Finland is omitted; which was complicated by Stalin's insistence that the Western Allies declare war on Finland. Also, all of those Eastern and Central European Governments which were in exile in London were left out of any return to their rightful places and Red Communist Puppet Governments were put in power.