Mission to Moscow

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's 1943, and Hollywood decides that a good 'educational' drama is needed to reassure an American public that is somewhat conflicted on being allied with Soviet Russia for the Second World War. Thus we are treated to this picture, one of the most scurrilously evil films that has ever had wide release. Yes, I said evil. No, there's no gratuitous sex or violence or bad language in the film. Just a wholesale haigiography of history's most prolific mass murderer, and the mendacious celebration of a regime whose primary accomplishment was to torture and/or murder tens of millions of people. Other reviewers have compared it as a propaganda piece akin to "Triumph of the Will" or "Battleship Potemkin", but this shameful film has none of Riefenstahl's artistic direction or Eisenstein's imagery. Just one monstrous lie after another served up to justify aggression, war-mongering, totalitarianism, secret police tactics, repression and every other evil of the 20th century. In a just world the makers of this film, if they were not duped into believing it themselves, should have been consigned to the Gulag that they glorified with this hateful piece.