FREE TAPATALK APP

funk de fino · 15th February 2010, 03:02 AM

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.

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 · 15th February 2010, 03:14 AM

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 · 15th February 2010, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 15th February 2010, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by 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...925d4aba49.jpg

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 · 15th February 2010, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

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 · 15th February 2010, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by MaGZ

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 · 15th February 2010, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

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 · 15th February 2010, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

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 and this Observer article have their doubts - that the players were indifferent or at most reluctant, not that they went bananas.

Originally Posted by funk de fino

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 · 15th February 2010, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by MaGZ

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 · 15th February 2010, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by MaGZ

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

1930 what?

funk de fino · 15th February 2010, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

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.

funk de fino · 15th February 2010, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

This match report and this Observer article 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 15th February 2010, 09:12 AM

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 · 15th February 2010, 09:16 AM

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/0,16...390102,00.html

ravdin · 15th February 2010, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by 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"

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...390102,00.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 · 15th February 2010, 10:49 AM

Sounds as if the ambassador had gone native.

Very bad show, what?

I Ratant · 15th February 2010, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

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 · 15th February 2010, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

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 · 15th February 2010, 01:09 PM

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 · 15th February 2010, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

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 Hapgood corroborates Matthews' story w.r.t. his outrage.

Originally Posted by funk de fino

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 · 15th February 2010, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

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 · 16th February 2010, 12:11 AM

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 · 16th February 2010, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

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 · 16th February 2010, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by timhau

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 · 16th February 2010, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

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 · 16th February 2010, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

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 · 16th February 2010, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by timhau

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 · 16th February 2010, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by fleabeetle

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 · 16th February 2010, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

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 · 16th February 2010, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

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 · 16th February 2010, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

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 · 16th February 2010, 04:23 AM

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 · 16th February 2010, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

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 · 16th February 2010, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

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?

Originally Posted by rockinkt

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 · 16th February 2010, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by 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"

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...390102,00.html

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

zooterkin · 16th February 2010, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

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 · 16th February 2010, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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 · 16th February 2010, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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 · 16th February 2010, 06:03 AM

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 · 16th February 2010, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

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.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

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.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

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).

15th February 2010, 03:02 AM	#1
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Nazi Salute Shame 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. 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.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

15th February 2010, 03:14 AM	#2
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	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
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

15th February 2010, 03:30 AM	#3
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Originally Posted by 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 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.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

15th February 2010, 04:25 AM	#4
MaGZ Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6,340	Originally Posted by 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...925d4aba49.jpg 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 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6,340

15th February 2010, 04:28 AM	#5
MaGZ Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6,340	Originally Posted by funk de fino 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.
MaGZ Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6,340

15th February 2010, 04:32 AM	#6
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,589	Originally Posted by MaGZ 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.
	__________________ GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and put in a random number. Anti-social experiment.

15th February 2010, 04:55 AM	#7
commandlinegamer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mazes of Menace Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin 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?

15th February 2010, 05:00 AM	#8
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,406	Originally Posted by funk de fino 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 and this Observer article have their doubts - that the players were indifferent or at most reluctant, not that they went bananas. Originally Posted by funk de fino 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.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

15th February 2010, 07:42 AM	#9
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Originally Posted by MaGZ 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.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

15th February 2010, 07:43 AM	#10
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Originally Posted by MaGZ In the 1930s the British Royal Family were fans of Hitler. 1930 what?
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

15th February 2010, 07:45 AM	#11
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Originally Posted by commandlinegamer 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.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

15th February 2010, 07:54 AM	#12
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Originally Posted by ddt This match report and this Observer article 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

15th February 2010, 09:12 AM	#13
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,610	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.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

15th February 2010, 09:16 AM	#14
GanipGnop Thinker Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 211	Man Of The Rear 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/0,16...390102,00.html
GanipGnop Thinker Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 211

15th February 2010, 09:21 AM	#15
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,610	Originally Posted by 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" http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...390102,00.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.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

15th February 2010, 10:49 AM	#16
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Sounds as if the ambassador had gone native. Very bad show, what?
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

15th February 2010, 11:03 AM	#17
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by commandlinegamer 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

15th February 2010, 11:56 AM	#18
Rrose Selavy Stranded in Sub-Atomica Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,955	Originally Posted by ravdin 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 -
	Last edited by Rrose Selavy; 15th February 2010 at 11:58 AM.

15th February 2010, 01:09 PM	#19
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	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!

15th February 2010, 01:22 PM	#20
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,406	Originally Posted by funk de fino 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 Hapgood corroborates Matthews' story w.r.t. his outrage. Originally Posted by funk de fino 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.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

15th February 2010, 10:49 PM	#21
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by commandlinegamer 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
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

16th February 2010, 12:11 AM	#22
rockinkt Muse Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 647	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.
rockinkt Muse Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 647	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

16th February 2010, 12:28 AM	#23
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,755	Originally Posted by rockinkt 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?
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

16th February 2010, 01:11 AM	#24
rockinkt Muse Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 647	Originally Posted by timhau 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.
rockinkt Muse Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 647	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

16th February 2010, 01:19 AM	#25
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,755	Originally Posted by rockinkt 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.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

16th February 2010, 01:25 AM	#26
fleabeetle Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 427	Originally Posted by rockinkt 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.

16th February 2010, 01:25 AM	#27
rockinkt Muse Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 647	Originally Posted by timhau 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 Muse Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 647	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

16th February 2010, 01:31 AM	#28
rockinkt Muse Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 647	Originally Posted by fleabeetle 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.
rockinkt Muse Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 647	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt* Last edited by rockinkt; 16th February 2010 at 01:33 AM.

16th February 2010, 01:47 AM	#29
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,755	Originally Posted by rockinkt 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?
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

16th February 2010, 02:02 AM	#30
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	Originally Posted by rockinkt 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.
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously. Last edited by richardm; 16th February 2010 at 02:03 AM. Reason: Edit: 6-3. Take that, huns!

16th February 2010, 03:19 AM	#31
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by rockinkt 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
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

16th February 2010, 04:23 AM	#32
rockinkt Muse Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 647	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
rockinkt Muse Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 647	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

16th February 2010, 04:27 AM	#33
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by funk de fino 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.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

16th February 2010, 04:28 AM	#34
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by rockinkt 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? Originally Posted by rockinkt 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
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

16th February 2010, 04:54 AM	#36
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,035	Originally Posted by ddt 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.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232