Nazi Salute Shame

[Andrew Wiggin]

But is it expected of them? Or indeed of US citizens; do people give you black looks if you don't put your hand on your heart?

Actually, amongst certain rabid patriots, it's worth at least a black look. At the moment, approximately half the nation consists of rabid patriots, at least if one believes the rabid patriotic radio shows...

A

 

[rockinkt]

I would love to see all the newspaper coverage of the "outrage" these guys felt about giving the salute in the days following their pathetic actions.

If they were so upset about then - what stopped them from making a big deal about it to their media immediately?

If the whole team had refused to give the salute - what were they going to do - send them all home?

The fact that they allowed the one person that refused to be cowed into making the salute to be "quietly dropped from the team" shows just what moral lightweights these guys were. The whole team was obviously just in it for their own personal fame and gain.

Except for the only real man on the team - Stan Cullis.

 

[timhau]

If they were so upset about then - what stopped them from making a big deal about it to their media immediately?

Would a 1938 newspaper take any notice of a political statement by a soccer player?

 

[rockinkt]

Would a 1938 newspaper take any notice of a political statement by a soccer player?

Do you really think that a bunch of enraged members of the nation's heroic football team would not be quoted in the papers??
I dare say there were many interviews of who thought what when what goal was scored - not to mention dramatic recounting of the game in the words of many of the players.
The bums were silent when it came to the important things.

 

[timhau]

Do you really think that a bunch of enraged members of the nation's heroic football team would not be quoted in the papers??
I dare say there were many interviews of who thought what when what goal was scored - not to mention dramatic recounting of the game in the words of many of the players.

Today, there would be. The incident is from 72 years ago.

 

[fleabeetle]

If the whole team had refused to give the salute - what were they going to do - send them all home?

The fact that they allowed the one person that refused to be cowed into making the salute to be "quietly dropped from the team" shows just what moral lightweights these guys were. The whole team was obviously just in it for their own personal fame and gain.

Except for the only real man on the team - Stan Cullis.

What were they going to do? -- perhaps, after return home from the match, send them to prison for disobedience to orders from the Ambassador / the Foreign Office? If I had been one of the team, that contingency would at least have gone through my mind.

It's easy to, at a safe distance, lambaste people for their perceivedly craven behaviour -- in situations which the lambaster is not in.

 

[rockinkt]

Today, there would be. The incident is from 72 years ago.

Please explain the logic behind that statement.
Are you trying to say that sports and hero worship of athletes was not present 72 years ago?
Are you trying to say that nations did not follow their national teams with great fervor 72 years ago?
Are you saying that there were no newspapers? Fewer newspapers? Less readership? Mass illiteracy?

 

[rockinkt]

What were they going to do? -- perhaps, after return home from the match, send them to prison for disobedience to orders from the Ambassador / the Foreign Office? If I had been one of the team, that contingency would at least have gone through my mind.

It's easy to, at a safe distance, lambaste people for their perceivedly craven behaviour -- in situations which the lambaster is not in.

Do you really think that they would have all been jailed? For what? These were famous footballers - the darlings of the nation.

Lots of people have been put in far worse positions with actual real threats to themselves and have not taken the cowards way out. Do not imply that I (ETA: or anyone else who criticizes spineless oafs) have always been at a safe distance.

 

[timhau]

Please explain the logic behind that statement.
Are you trying to say that sports and hero worship of athletes was not present 72 years ago?
Are you trying to say that nations did not follow their national teams with great fervor 72 years ago?
Are you saying that there were no newspapers? Fewer newspapers? Less readership? Mass illiteracy?

I thought it was kind of obvious. Newspapers in 1938 were very different from today's papers. The hero worship of athletes was certainly there back then, but did the press bother to report every faux pas or misdeed a sports hero happened to commit? They certainly didn't do it over here in the case of our famous Finnish track-and-field and skiing stars of the 1920s and 1930s. If an English soccer player said today that Germany as a country sucks, the press would be all over it. Would they have jumped to it in 1938, or would they just have seen it as someone speaking improperly and above their position, and ignored it?

 

[richardm]

The bums were silent when it came to the important things.

If by "the bums" you mean the players, the bums were actually in a bit of a difficult position. They'd been told that it was a direct order from the British Ambassador, because the political situation between Britain and Germany was so sensitive that it needed "only a single spark to set Europe alight". Although they weren't particularly happy about it, they deemed it to be the thing to do - not least because the whole point of their being there was to demonstrate that Germany wasn't a pariah state, in an attempt to avert the looming war.

If by "the bums" you mean the press, well, it was actually a bit of a big deal at the time; the British press was not impressed and said so. I doubt whether they would have noted down every thought that the players had though; they didn't really work like that at the time.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Please explain the logic behind that statement.
Are you trying to say that sports and hero worship of athletes was not present 72 years ago?

That's pretty much it. Sports players 72 years ago were not the multimillionaire superstars of the present day; they were regarded as working class and not terribly important.

Let me give you some anecdotal evidence. The headmaster of my primary school had, in his youth, been a superb goalkeeper, and tried out for the Huddersfield first team; at the time, I think they were in the top division of the football league. This would have been in the 1930's, the very period we're talking about. However, after his trial and provisional acceptance, he had a career-ending injury to his knee ligaments. This meant that he had to revert to his second choice of career, teaching mathematics in primary schools. His parents were extremely relieved about this, because the salary, career prospects and social status of a primary school maths teacher were very much better than those of a professional footballer.

These days, it's almost unimaginable that a primary school teacher could be paid more than a premiership footballer; back in the 1930s, the converse was completely unimaginable. This is one of those ways in which the past really is like a foreign country.

Dave

 

[rockinkt]

That is the same in all sports around the western world. Money and social standing has improved exponentially.
But, they were still the darlings of the masses and would have received coverage because that salute would have been seen as abhorrent by huge numbers of English people.

Gossip is far different from real news and one can bet that being asked/forced to give the Nazi salute was real news.

Argue all the strawman points you want.
They didn't make a fuss at the time because it was total self interest.
It is obvious that they have tried to revise history by pretending to have made a fuss when they were indifferent at best.

Except the only real man on the team - Stan Cullis

 

[ponderingturtle]

More or less? Hitler pushed so there was no vote.

Sure but rememeber these were Brits. It was not like much of the Empire got a vote on if they wanted in or not.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But, they were still the darlings of the masses and would have received coverage because that salute would have been seen as abhorrent by huge numbers of English people.

Gossip is far different from real news and one can bet that being asked/forced to give the Nazi salute was real news.

What's your evidence for these assertions? Can you point to examples of newspaper stories from the period in which the opinions of professional footballers were seen as nationally significant?

Argue all the strawman points you want.

I'm not sure what exactly is the strawman here. Footballers did not have anything like the status in 1938 that they do in 2010. What makes you personally think they received a similar level of media coverage, and how do you know you're not simply projecting the social attitudes of your own time on to a time when they didn't apply?

Dave

 

[ponderingturtle]

I just want to point out this sort of shame isn't just found on the football field Hitler was voted TIME magazine's 1938 "Man of the Year"

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html

So you don't think Hitler was the most important person in the world in 1938? Who shaped events more?

 

[zooterkin]

No I don't. In fact, in this Torygraph article Hapgood corroborates Matthews' story w.r.t. his outrage.

Yes, but that also was written after the war. It wouldn't surprise me that the players objected to being told what to do, but I doubt if the vehemence is quite as bad as it was recalled as. Is there any record of the protest from before the war, and on exactly what grounds they were objecting? The fact that one player was, quietly (and if that was not reported, that suggests the papers were not interested, or not allowed to report it), dropped shows that pressure could be exerted on the players, which they could not do much about. The world then was a different place, hard to imagine for those who've grown up in the internet age when things are generally more open due to the difficulty of keeping things behind closed doors.

 

[funk de fino]

Yes, but that also was written after the war. It wouldn't surprise me that the players objected to being told what to do, but I doubt if the vehemence is quite as bad as it was recalled as.

Are they Liars are then?

Is there any record of the protest from before the war, and on exactly what grounds they were objecting?

I'm sure if you really want believe Sir Stanley Matthews and Hapgood are liars you could trawl back through the ages and come up with somthing.

The fact that one player was, quietly (and if that was not reported, that suggests the papers were not interested, or not allowed to report it), dropped shows that pressure could be exerted on the players, which they could not do much about. The world then was a different place, hard to imagine for those who've grown up in the internet age when things are generally more open due to the difficulty of keeping things behind closed doors.

BBC says.

The gesture provoked outrage in the British press, and was seen as all the more galling since Hitler was not even present at the time.

englandcaps says this

This caused a furore in the press back home, but the politics were more important than the game.

Apparently the Aston Villa team gave the "V's" the next day instead of the salute.

 

[funk de fino]

Sure but rememeber these were Brits. It was not like much of the Empire got a vote on if they wanted in or not.

And your point is?

 

[Ocelot]

No need to go calling our national heroes liars in order to quesiton the plasticity of their memory over the decades.

Seems to me that sportsmen speaking out about issues of politics would have been unusual in 1938 so a contemporary record of their reaction is unlikley. It's lack indicates nothing.

Whilst I'd hestitate to suggest that they'd consiously spin their later depiciton of the event their memory will have been coloured by the events of the invervening years. It would be irresponsible not to acknowledge this. However to completely cast out the only available evidence would be quite rash.

 

[ddt]

I would love to see all the newspaper coverage of the "outrage" these guys felt about giving the salute in the days following their pathetic actions.

The point about it is that all recorded recollections from the players date from after the war. Apart from that, the English press did raise a big stink immediately after the game.

Yes, but that also was written after the war. It wouldn't surprise me that the players objected to being told what to do, but I doubt if the vehemence is quite as bad as it was recalled as.

I definitely see that as a possibility, though the two accounts match quite well with each other.

Is there any record of the protest from before the war, and on exactly what grounds they were objecting? The fact that one player was, quietly (and if that was not reported, that suggests the papers were not interested, or not allowed to report it), dropped shows that pressure could be exerted on the players, which they could not do much about.

The (recent) articles I found about it all claim that players' recollections all date from after the war.

The world then was a different place, hard to imagine for those who've grown up in the internet age when things are generally more open due to the difficulty of keeping things behind closed doors.

I agree. And football players in those days didn't communicate every day with the press, as they do now. Even in 1978, I can't think of any Dutch player being interviewed before whether he wanted to go to Argentina or not (there was a movement here which called for boycotting the WC).