Talk:Mission to Moscow

Neutrality Questionable
The author is obviously not a fan of this film and at times even calls it Pro-Communistic propaganda.I deleted some of the opinionated parts but can someone with more knowledge of the movie please work on re-writing this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praj260 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If he does, I think you will find the article gets even more opinionated. All the show trial victims were really pro-Nazi saboteurs - ugh. To know this movie really well, is to hate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.146.166 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a deleted scene at the end, showing Trotsky plotting with the Nazis to destroy the Soviet Union for his own personal gain (being made ruler of a Nazi-occupied Russia). Someone must have had a reality attack, and not been able to swallow this particular bit of Stalinist tripe. I promise you, people with real knowledge of this movie will fill the article with opinionated (and true)stuff like that. 76.102.48.24 (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "needs infobox" tag
This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Big still stalin.jpg
Image:Big still stalin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Multipe issues in article
I've made extensive edits in this article to address some serious problems, beginning with vandalism in the lead paragraph and continuing with WP:SYN and WP:NPOV issues, lack of sourcing for controversial statements, and an overall lack of a neutral tone. New York Times critic Bosley Crowther was attacked as "Stalinist," and his review of the movie was described as "fawning," which is both POV and not true. He actually criticized the movie. The article generally was a coatrack for a political essay and was grossly unencyclopedic. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content not suitable for Wikipedia
Someone has placed content with the best of intentions - but not understanding how Wikipedia works. Not aware that content must not have personal research or personal knowledge but must be drawn from reputable published sources that can be cited. Clearly an honest mistake not vandalism. I encourage the editor to find other ways - within Wikipedia guidelines - to convey this content. Citing references and sources. As a courtesy - I have posted the removed content here: Davidpatrick (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * MISSION TO MOSCOW -- SOME THOUGHTS by Mia Grosjean, Joseph Davies’ granddaughter - January 2010


 * The three versions of 1) MISSION TO MOSCOW, The Book, by Joseph E. Davies (published by Simon and Schuster in 1941) and 2) MISSION TO MOSCOW, The Movie – a 1943 Warner Brothers film directed by Michael Curtis/Screenplay by Howard Koch, as well as 3) MISSION TO MOSCOW, The Book about the Movie by David Culbert, (ironically published in 1980 by Davies’ alma mater, The University of Wisconsin Press) are so entangled that at this point it would take a Political Science PhD student’s dissertation to separate and decipher fact from fiction.


 * The book -- published by Simon and Schuster in 1941 which sold close to 700,000 copies world wide in many languages -- is comprised of letters, diary entries and Davies’ State Department reports between 1936 through 1938 which FDR agreed for Davies to use.  Unfortunately in today’s world the movie -- with its many inaccuracies -- is inclined to have precedent over the book.  These days most people simply skip the book and watch the movie assuming they’re both the same.  They are not.


 * All three need to be looked at individually, and each needs to be placed in its own historic context.


 * The Book needs to be looked at in the light of FDR’s desire to jump-starting US – Soviet dialogue especially considering Ambassador William C. Bullitt’s tenure, pre Davies.


 * The Movie should be watched in light of conditions in the world during World War II when the Soviets were our allies. The book does not touch on this period.  The movie should also be seen understanding that in 1943 the Soviets were the only army on the continent actually fighting the Germans.  “Where is the second front?  When is the U.S. going to land?”  All excellent questions that needed answering for the Soviet Army -- which was loosing millions of people -- in fact twenty five million by war’s end.  


 * And, The Book about the Movie, oddly enough re-titled simply MISSION TO MOSCOW – was written with the bulk of the text coming from Senator Joseph McCarthy’s hearings on un-American activities and transcribed from the cross-examination of THE MOVIE’s producer, director, and studio head--the Warner Brothers.   Would anyone dare use McCarthy testimony today to prove a point when the defendants were simply doing what they had to do while fighting a mad McCarthy for their very reputations? 


 * Perhaps the Book and the Movie need to be viewed in light of “the bigger picture.” First, placing oneself strategically for a coming war and second, ultimately playing the game to win it. 


 * The Book about the Movie should be seen as an interesting insight into the freeze after the war and the finger pointing that cold war/iron curtain politics created.


 * (Regarding Culbert’s book, I also need to note that in the acknowledgements on page 9 he never interviewed Davies daughter, my mother, Emlen Knight Davies, who was with her father in Moscow in 1937 and 1938. I find this particularly interesting.  I also note that the actual movie script published in Culbert’s book does not follow the movie at all.) 


 * I write this because there is work to be done. 


 * For instance the following filled with inaccuracies: 

Bosley Crowther review
The NYT's critic was not accurately quoted if the online version is correct; the removed material is only included on mirrors of the article. While this does not mean it does not exist as a printed source, it seems unlikely two articles by Crowther on the movie would be published on 30 April 1943. However, a check of the edit history reveals this edit, made by a blocked user, introduced the quotes without any text (citing another source or critic) having been falsely removed since then. So my action would appear to be completely vindicated. Philip Cross (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Adulteration of content
User:Wran made some controversial changes to this article (1) Wran removed the 'Bennett, p. 20' citation. (2) Source cited: "a quarter-hour dedicated to arguing that Leon Trotsky was a Nazi agent." Wran tampered with that quote. (3) The article previously had the statement: "The book was vague on the guilt or innocence of defendants in the Moscow trials, but the final screenplay portrayed the defendants as undeniably guilty." The source (Piers Brendon's The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930s, p. 498, third paragraph) says: "...publication of Davies's ingratiating account of his diplomatic stewardship ... Warner brothers produced a cinematic version of the book in 1943. It was a grotesque distortion of history." Wran editorialized this statement as follows: "The book was vague on the guilt or innocence of defendants in the Moscow trials, but the film portrayed the defendants in the Moscow trials as guilty in Davie's [sic] view." This editor tampered with quoted text and editorialized referenced statements in an unduly manner violating WP:INTEGRITY. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your changes, Omni, especially restoring the quote from the producer Buckner about what a political fraud the film was. As you can see by my recent edit, I prefer the longer version of the quote from Reason magazine about the film defending the purges.  I'm also uncertain of what tense the verbs should be in when we're describing what happens in the film—don't the sources we quote use present tense?  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wran's comments fail to address the issue I raised. The 'in Davie's [sic] view' part is improper synthesis. The phrase "was a grotesque distortion of history" belongs to Piers Brendon, not Davies. P.S.: The sources use past tense. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you and Wran are well acquainted and I sure hope I don't get caught in the crossfire! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * in no way, shape, or form is it synthesis, but it does change a falsehood into an accurate account of what happens in the film: 'In the film, Davies proclaims at the end of the trial scene: "Based on twenty years’ trial practice, I’d be inclined to believe these confessions."'. no one other than you has remotely suggested that the phrase "was a grotesque distortion of history" belongs to Davies! --Wran (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Please let me summarize. You inserted the following: "but the film portrays the defendants in the Moscow trials as guilty in Davie's [sic] view. . So my objection was this: while the "in Davie's [sic] view" part has to do with "what happens in the film", you retained the Brendon 2007 citation; the latter does not describe what happens in the film; it just says that a film was produced and that it was "a grotesque distortion of history". What I have been saying since the beginning is that you cannot just editorialize a sourced statement in a way that misleads the reader to thinking that the content you have inserted is validated by references, when in fact it is not. Before jumping into conclusions, please assume good faith and justify your reversions. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)