For those with any understanding of the reality of the Soviet system, and the nature and atrocities of Joseph Stalin, this film is a travesty of propaganda that seeks to glorify a system and government that was only barely removed from the brutality of the Nazi regime it was fighting at the time. A case in point is that Hitler only invaded Poland after reaching an agreement with Stalin to split it between themselves! Stalin was Hitler's ally until Hitler decided to attack Russia after failing in the Battle of Britain! It is estimated that anywhere between 34 and 49 MILLION Russians were killed either by starvation or violent act directly linked to Stalin.That such a propaganda piece was made during the war may be understandable... but TCMs decision to air it as a filler on the day after the US Mid-term elections is not. This is a shameful piece that should be relegated to the dust bin or at least be aired with a disclaimer that it is a propaganda piece which highly distorts the facts. That one reviewer found it "entertaining" and that others found that review "useful" only serves to point out how showing a film like this out of context can mislead and misinform.In fact, the pro-socialist undertones of this film hints at the communist influence that would soon be seen in Hollywood as highlighted by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Activities which the opening of the KGB files when the Soviet Union collapsed confirmed.

This Jame A. Fitzpatrick Traveltalk from 1942 looks like a standard example of the series, except for two things: first, it has no Technicolor photography. Instead, it is composed of black and white newsreel clips from ten years earlier. Second, Fitzpatrick's usual peppy drivel is not about the charming oddities that might make a tourist want to visit. Instead, it is about the glories of the Soviet government, the shameful drosky drivers who are remnants of feudalism, the children placed in "youth colonies" to be rescued from the "ignorance of their mothers" and the end, which extols the glories of Joseph Stalin.Fitzgerald never had a bad word to say on screen about any place; he also ran a travel agency. Nonetheless, this one looks absolutely bizarre and can only be explained in the context of World War Two propaganda. It shows clearly that Mr. Fitzpatrick was not about pretty pictures of exotic locales. He was about sticking to the script, no matter what the words were.

Quite interesting piece from 1942. That's the important thing, the year this was done. It shows how the Soviet Union has tried to change from a rural, farming country to an industrial power. The main reason for this to be made was the war, of course. Hollywood was trying to drum up support for the war and that means make our allies look as good as possible. It's interesting that in this film, Hollywood makes the Soviet Union and Stalin as a force for good. Within ten years, Hollywood would do a complete about face and start making the communists as bad, evil and the work of Satan. But take it for what it is and enjoy. There is some interesting shots of children in a school, women working on the street, a parade float honoring ball bearings (I kid you not) as well as a short tribute to Stalin himself! It's good for a laugh if nothing else.

People of Russia (1943) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Cheaply made but entertaining short from director James A. FitzPatrick takes a look at the people of Russia as we learn why they're so strong and kept the USSR from falling apart over the years. Throughout the 10-minute running time we're told various stories about the Russian people including how all the children are taken into special schools to make sure everyone, no matter their sex, is able to read. They also talk about how equality is a major issue there and how work is glorified by all. If you see the title of this and notice FitzPatrick then you'd obviously think that this was another TravelTalks entry but it's not. This is a separate project and since WWII was going on that probably explains why all the footage from this was shot in the early 30s. This adds a rather cheap feel to the picture but I think the stories told are entertaining enough to keep one interesting in the movie. It's should also be noted that the film is in B&W and it appears that some of the footage was taken from a silent movie or two.