Coubertin: âThe light manner in which you have taken for granted all those various reports is enlightened [ sic ] by the liberty you have taken in quoting even Baron de Coubertin [â¦]. In doing so, you have gone over the limit, because the Baron that you rightly praise has on this important question the same opinion as all the Members of the IOC.â In fact, Coubertinâs enthusiasm for the Games was certainly not a given. In October, Lewald had written to Coubertin asking whether he could make a public statement against the boycotters, a request to which Coubertin did not appear to accede. If anybody was taking Coubertinâs name in vain it wasBaillet-Latour, who ended his letter to Jahncke by demanding the Americanâs resignation.
As December and the AAU convention approached, the British were carefully watching events on the other side of the Atlantic. At the British Olympic Association committee meeting on 3 December, Harold Abrahams spoke in favour of participation, arguing that it was up to the IOC to withdraw from the Games and not the British. Abrahams believed that participation would help to tie Germany into the community of nations. If the Games were boycotted, Abrahams suggested, then Germany might well turn more belligerent. This was a classic piece of appeasement. Abrahams also thought that it was in the best interests of British sport for Britain to attend the Games. In this respect, he was similar to Brundage, who appeared more worried about the impact of a boycott on sport rather than the potential bolstering of the Nazi regime that might be engendered by attending the Games.
Not all former British Olympians were in concord with Abrahams, however. Philip Noel-Baker, who captained the British Olympic team at Antwerp in 1920 and Paris in 1924, wrote to the Manchester Guardian , stating that the BOA should make its own mind up:
[â¦] will not the British Olympic Association decide for itself that sending teams to Berlin will involve risks to the Olympic principle which it would be unwise and, indeed, disastrous for us to run?
It would be a grave matter to abandon the Berlin Games at this late stage. But [â¦] it would be a far graver matter to condone by our participation the flagrant violation of the vital principle upon which alone a world organisation for friendly rivalry in international sport can be built up.
Noel-Bakerâs opinion was supported by the publication of a photograph in the Manchester Guardian of a sign in Germany which read âJews Forbiddenâ. Of course, such signs were commonplace around Germany, but what made this sign significant was that it could be found in the Bavarian villages of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, which were hosting the forthcoming Winter Olympics.
The sign naturally enraged Jewish communities all over the world, nowhere more so than in Britain. Neville Laski, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, wrote to Harold Abrahams, protesting atthe BOAâs continued support of the Games. âIt passes the bounds of the knowledge which I possess to understand how any national or international Olympic committee, in view of the existence of this notice, could think for one moment of holding the Games in Berlin. [â¦] I should like to understand how the Committees [â¦] reconcile their continued association with the Games in Berlin with the statutes upon which the Games are founded.â
Laskiâs appeal fell on stony ground. On the evening of 6 December, the same day on which the AAU delegates were meeting at the Hotel Commodore in New York City, the BOA formally accepted the German invitation to attend the Games. As Evan Hunter, the secretary of the BOA, told Brundage in a short letter written the day before Hunter sailed to Australia, the association âaccepted the invitation absolutely unconditionallyâ. The confidence of the members was no doubt boosted by the recent playing of a football match between
As December and the AAU convention approached, the British were carefully watching events on the other side of the Atlantic. At the British Olympic Association committee meeting on 3 December, Harold Abrahams spoke in favour of participation, arguing that it was up to the IOC to withdraw from the Games and not the British. Abrahams believed that participation would help to tie Germany into the community of nations. If the Games were boycotted, Abrahams suggested, then Germany might well turn more belligerent. This was a classic piece of appeasement. Abrahams also thought that it was in the best interests of British sport for Britain to attend the Games. In this respect, he was similar to Brundage, who appeared more worried about the impact of a boycott on sport rather than the potential bolstering of the Nazi regime that might be engendered by attending the Games.
Not all former British Olympians were in concord with Abrahams, however. Philip Noel-Baker, who captained the British Olympic team at Antwerp in 1920 and Paris in 1924, wrote to the Manchester Guardian , stating that the BOA should make its own mind up:
[â¦] will not the British Olympic Association decide for itself that sending teams to Berlin will involve risks to the Olympic principle which it would be unwise and, indeed, disastrous for us to run?
It would be a grave matter to abandon the Berlin Games at this late stage. But [â¦] it would be a far graver matter to condone by our participation the flagrant violation of the vital principle upon which alone a world organisation for friendly rivalry in international sport can be built up.
Noel-Bakerâs opinion was supported by the publication of a photograph in the Manchester Guardian of a sign in Germany which read âJews Forbiddenâ. Of course, such signs were commonplace around Germany, but what made this sign significant was that it could be found in the Bavarian villages of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, which were hosting the forthcoming Winter Olympics.
The sign naturally enraged Jewish communities all over the world, nowhere more so than in Britain. Neville Laski, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, wrote to Harold Abrahams, protesting atthe BOAâs continued support of the Games. âIt passes the bounds of the knowledge which I possess to understand how any national or international Olympic committee, in view of the existence of this notice, could think for one moment of holding the Games in Berlin. [â¦] I should like to understand how the Committees [â¦] reconcile their continued association with the Games in Berlin with the statutes upon which the Games are founded.â
Laskiâs appeal fell on stony ground. On the evening of 6 December, the same day on which the AAU delegates were meeting at the Hotel Commodore in New York City, the BOA formally accepted the German invitation to attend the Games. As Evan Hunter, the secretary of the BOA, told Brundage in a short letter written the day before Hunter sailed to Australia, the association âaccepted the invitation absolutely unconditionallyâ. The confidence of the members was no doubt boosted by the recent playing of a football match between
Similar Books
