Nazi Salute Shame

[funk de fino]

Although this is not current by any means of the word, it is for me, as I only saw this story for the first time at the weekend. Although a sports story, I believe it is also a social issue.

This photograph is of the England football team giving a Nazi salute prior to a friendly game against Germany in 1938. The team were ordered to give a salute by the Foreign Office.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_182444b7925d4aba49.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19046)

The only player to refuse was a young Wolves player called Stan Cullis. He was dropped from the team but went on in later years to captain the side.

I saw this photo for the first time on a TV show at the weekend and can truly say it was one of those "WTH" moments. My grandfather spent the majority of the war in Stalag XXB and was one of the death march survivors. I do not start many threads on this forum but I was stunned when I saw this and wondered how well known this was amongst posters from the UK?

A great reason for keeping politics out of sport.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Not an effort to gloss over nazism, but consider the date and the context here. Consider what the gesture was trying to say at the moment, not what it would have said if the participants had 20-20 foresight.

In 1938, this wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal as it would be if it was 1946. This wasn't a nation at war with britain at the time. Didn't they host the summer olympics that year? I imagine there are foreign folks who put their hands over their hearts as a gesture of respect during the american national anthem.

A

[funk de fino]

Not an effort to gloss over nazism, but consider the date and the context here. Consider what the gesture was trying to say at the moment, not what it would have said if the participants had 20-20 foresight.

In 1938, this wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal as it would be if it was 1946. This wasn't a nation at war with britain at the time. Didn't they host the summer olympics that year? I imagine there are foreign folks who put their hands over their hearts as a gesture of respect during the american national anthem.

A

Yet it was a big enough stooshy that most of the players went bananas in the dressing room when told thay HAD to do it.

They had annexed Austria at that point also. No-one was under any illusions of what Nazi germany was all about (except Chamberlain it appears) Summer Olympics were 1936.

[MaGZ]

Although this is not current by any means of the word, it is for me, as I only saw this story for the first time at the weekend. Although a sports story, I believe it is also a social issue.

This photograph is of the England football team giving a Nazi salute prior to a friendly game against Germany in 1938. The team were ordered to give a salute by the Foreign Office.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_182444b7925d4aba49.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19046)

The only player to refuse was a young Wolves player called Stan Cullis. He was dropped from the team but went on in later years to captain the side.

I saw this photo for the first time on a TV show at the weekend and can truly say it was one of those "WTH" moments. My grandfather spent the majority of the war in Stalag XXB and was one of the death march survivors. I do not start many threads on this forum but I was stunned when I saw this and wondered how well known this was amongst posters from the UK?

A great reason for keeping politics out of sport.

How do you know they were not members of Oswald Mosley's Union of British Fascists?

Fascism was quite popular in Britain.

[MaGZ]

Yet it was a big enough stooshy that most of the players went bananas in the dressing room when told thay HAD to do it.

They had annexed Austria at that point also. No-one was under any illusions of what Nazi germany was all about (except Chamberlain it appears) Summer Olympics were 1936.

In the 1930s the British Royal Family were fans of Hitler.

[Mashuna]

How do you know they were not members of Oswald Mosley's Union of British Fascists?

Fascism was quite popular in Britain.

It's true that footballers aren't generally known for their intelligence, but in this case your suppositions are incorrect.

[commandlinegamer]

I imagine there are foreign folks who put their hands over their hearts as a gesture of respect during the american national anthem.

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?

[ddt]

Yet it was a big enough stooshy that most of the players went bananas in the dressing room when told thay HAD to do it.
This match report (http://www.englandfootballonline.com/Seas1900-39/1937-38/MS216Ger1938.html) and this Observer article (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/englandfootball/story/0,,541528,00.html) have their doubts - that the players were indifferent or at most reluctant, not that they went bananas.


They had annexed Austria at that point also. No-one was under any illusions of what Nazi germany was all about (except Chamberlain it appears) Summer Olympics were 1936.
Well, the Anschluss was still regarded as a more or less legitimate claim. The match was in May 1938 - Munich was still half a year away.

[funk de fino]

How do you know they were not members of Oswald Mosley's Union of British Fascists?

Fascism was quite popular in Britain.

Because they did not want to do it. They had to be ordered to. Logic is not your friend.

[funk de fino]

In the 1930s the British Royal Family were fans of Hitler.

1930 what?

[funk de fino]

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?

Last time I went to Yankee stadium I did nothing of the sort, and no-one from the FO reprimanded me.

:rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

This match report (http://www.englandfootballonline.com/Seas1900-39/1937-38/MS216Ger1938.html) and this Observer article (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/englandfootball/story/0,,541528,00.html) have their doubts - that the players were indifferent or at most reluctant, not that they went bananas.

I take Stanley Matthews word on this I'm afraid.

As Stanley Matthews later recalled: "The dressing room erupted. There was bedlam. All the England players were livid and totally opposed to this, myself included. Everyone was shouting at once. Eddie Hapgood, normally a respectful and devoted captain, wagged his finger at the official and told him what he could do with the Nazi salute, which involved putting it where the sun doesn't shine." The FA official left only to return some minutes later saying he had a direct order from Sir Neville Henderson the British Ambassador in Berlin.

The players - led by England Captain Eddie Hapgood who was also Arsenal's captain and star player - initially refused and the dressing room mutiny threatened to spark a diplomatic incident.

A senior diplomat from the British Foreign Office intervened and it was eventually agreed that the England team would comply with the German request (albeit reluctantly).

If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.


Well, the Anschluss was still regarded as a more or less legitimate claim. The match was in May 1938 - Munich was still half a year away.

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

[ravdin]

Shameful indeed as by 1938, the Nazi military dictatorship, university purges, political executions, and pogroms against Jews were well known to everyone. It's not like the football team wouldn't have known what they were about.

[GanipGnop]

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":eek:

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

[ravdin]

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":eek:

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

That's not so shameful. The "Man of the Year" is the person they see as the most influential- not necessarily the person they admire the most.

[uk_dave]

Sounds as if the ambassador had gone native.

Very bad show, what?

[I Ratant]

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?
.
The rightwingnuts went berserk on this one..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o

[Rrose Selavy]

That's not so shameful. The "Man of the Year" is the person they see as the most influential- not necessarily the person they admire the most.

Indeed, Stalin made MOTY 1939 & 1942
Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979
-

[Skeptic]

Tempest in a teapot.

Athletes being told they must, for diplomatic reasons, salute in the Nazi way in 1938 -- before the war and holocaust -- is not nice and shows the appeasement of British government, but it's more a matter of "The guy's a jerk, but they're forcing me to do this" than "Kill all the Jews, we're being you!". Kudos to Cullis for refusing, but I can't really blame those who saluted.

Similarly with Hitler making "man of the year". It's the most influential man, certainly not the best morally. This was always their policy with choosing "Man of the Year". It's like people today saying Hitler or Stalin were the most influential men of the 20th century. That hardly means they're Communists or Nazis!

[ddt]

I take Stanley Matthews word on this I'm afraid.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.
No I don't. In fact, in this Torygraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup-2010/teams/england/3479037/England-v-Germany-at-the-Olympic-Stadium-The-Berlin-Effect-Football.html) Hapgood corroborates Matthews' story w.r.t. his outrage.


More or less? Hitler pushed so there was no vote.
Sure. I may have poorly expressed myself. While there was no vote on it, the general impression was that most Austrians favoured being part of Germany, and had favoured that since the end of WW1.

[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. :boggled:

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":eek:

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 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup-2010/teams/england/3479037/England-v-Germany-at-the-Olympic-Stadium-The-Berlin-Effect-Football.html) 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).

[ponderingturtle]

And your point is?

That moving around chunks of empires was not that strange a concept to people in that era. If it was viewed as a legitimate claim then I see no reason why it would have to be viewed as that big a deal.

In hindsight sure, but at the time I don't know.

[fleabeetle]

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

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. ;)

Didn't mean to come across as nasty -- this thing a bit of a pet peeve of mine (I being myself, a fairly spineless oaf, as such characters go). I tend rather to take to heart, "let him who is without sin, cast the first stone" -- though that comes from a source seemingly regarded with contempt, by the majority of folk on JREF.

[Ian Osborne]

I tend rather to take to heart, "let him who is without sin, cast the first stone" -- though that comes from a source seemingly regarded with contempt, by the majority of folk on JREF.

As sceptics, we'd say the maxim should be judged on its merits rather than accepted - or indeed dismissed - simply because it's in the Bible.

[I Ratant]

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.
.
Would the world-renowed reserved Englishman do more than pout "It's not cricket, old chap" in protest, way back when?

[fleabeetle]

As sceptics, we'd say the maxim should be judged on its merits rather than accepted - or indeed dismissed - simply because it's in the Bible.

I concur -- just, people are human, with human biases and frailties, earnestly though they may try to be critical-thinking and impartial: I see something of a tendency on JREF (obviously, not always or universally), to automatic scorn and enmity toward anything from a Christian source.

[Ocelot]

I concur -- just, people are human, with human biases and frailties, earnestly though they may try to be critical-thinking and impartial: I see something of a tendency on JREF (obviously, not always or universally), to automatic scorn and enmity toward anything from a Christian source.

Not just Christian Sources, there's a lot of scorn an enmity going on. I'd like to say only towards duboius sources but I can't back that up.