ASPECTS OF THE 1936 OLYMPICS : A LIFE IN PROPAGANDA

As an addendum to the previous blog in respect of the events of the 26^th July 1936, I should mention that one week later on the 1^st August 1936 the Olympic Games in Berlin opened in the newly built Olympiastadion at the Olympia Park, which seated 100,000 spectators. It seems appropriate to mention in view of the current Olympic games in Tokyo. The Olympic movement has been heralded as a world unifying event. The International Olympic Committee was founded by Pierre de Coubertin and Demetrios Vikelas in 1894. The first games under the IOC were held in 1896 in Athens.

The stated mission of the IOC is to promote the Olympics throughout the world and to lead the Olympic Movement:

1-    To encourage and support the organisation, development and coordination of sport and sports competitions;

2-    To ensure the regular celebration of the Olympic Games;

3-    To cooperate with the competent public or private organisations and authorities in the endeavour to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby to promote peace;

4-    To act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement;

5-    To encourage and support the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all structures with a view to implementing the principle of equality of men and women.

 

The Olympic motto, Citius, Altius, Fortius, Coubertin's Olympic ideals are expressed in the Olympic creed:

The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.

Just how mission statements 4 and 5 were dealt with during the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, in the light of what German Government and Military were contemplating and plotting vis a vis the Spanish Civil War, and the rest of the world,  just 5 days before the opening of the games is something to ponder. In any event they sought to make as much capital out of the games as possible and turned to a propaganda wizard with an interesting take on triumph and struggle.

Having just produced Triumph of Will (1935), filmmaker Leni Reifenstahl was commissioned by the German Olympic Committee to film the Games for $7 million. She produced her film Olympia. It was released in two parts. Part 1– Festival of Nations and Part 2 – Festival of Beauty – It was the first documentary feature film of the Olympic Games ever made. As a filmmaker Leni Reifenstahl was an extraordinary artist. Much has been written about her and she lived from 22^nd August 1902 to the 8^th September 2003 at age 101, practically the whole of the 20^th Century. 

 

                                                                     
 

                                                                   

She has a paculiar life story. Herewith a documentary biography, produced by The Peoples Profiles, which could be called the making of a Nazi propagandist: (there may be a commercial at the end film which you can ignore):

She was clearly one that got away. Many pernicious people have been interesting and imaginative artists, Reifenstahl is just an extraordinary example.

CAN I HAVE A DO-OVER ?

Today, the 26^th July is an anniversary of three events which took place 85 years ago in 1936. They were related to the Spanish Civil war which had kicked off some 8 days earlier in Southern Spain and what was then Spanish Morocco on the 17th July 1936. The fascist military coup had begun. On the 26^th July, Germany and Italy declared that they would intervene in support of Francisco Franco and the Nationalist faction, whilst on the same day in Prague an international communist conference decided to raise an international brigade of 5000 men and a fund of 1 billion francs to help the Republican Government. Italy went on to send some 50,000 troops and Germany another 16,000, whilst the International Brigades made up some 59,000.

 

Meanwhile on the same day at Givenchy-en-Gohelle not far from Vimy in the Pas de Calais, France, a new King Edward VIII unveiled the Canadian National Vimy War Memorial dedicated to the memory of Canadian Expeditionary Forces killed in the First World War. The monument is the centrepiece of a preserved battlefield park that encompasses a portion of the ground over which the Canadian Corps made their assault during the initial Battle of Vimy Ridge offensive of the Battle of Arras in 1917. The unveiling took place in the presence of then French President Albert Lebrun, a crowd of over 50,000 people and some 6,200 Canadian citizens.

 

 

 

The years between 1935 and 1939 were pretty turbulent times, what with the Italian Invasion of Ethiopia, the Japanese invasion of China, the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts, the general malaise in Europe, with concessions to Hitler and the Munich Agreement, etc. As to the events in Spain, the Spanish Civil War officially ended on the 1^st April 1939. It had been a training ground for the German Air Force and Army, as well as the Italian Army. During the almost 3 years of that conflict, some 455,000 people were killed.  Five months later on the 1^st September 1939 Hitler’s armies invaded Poland, which expanded worldwide and led to the death of some 70 to 85 million people.

 

As to Edward VIII, he abdicated in December of that year and in 1937, he and his new wife paid a social call to Berchtesgaden as Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

 

I am not sure what one can make of the bizarre nature of human activity, that on the one hand has crowds of people ready to commemorate the lives, or rather the deaths of people who gave their lives for what they believed was the preservation of freedom and democracy, and on the other hand, light a torch that escalated to the death of some 9 million people a year over 9 years of conflict.

 

What I can say is that the Duke of Windsor, on arrival at the pearly gates, must have pleaded for a do-over. He clearly didn’t get one.

IS KILLING THE AMERICAN DREAM - AN IDLE THOUGHT

Politics in the United States has reached an impasse. The adversarial positions taken by the new conservatives affiliated with the republican party is solidifying with each passing day. Not only are they intent on obstructing any attempt to create a more inclusive and caring society, but they are claiming the authority of the United States Constitution is supporting their narrow, restrictive, prejudicial and bigoted point of view. Their reasoning is as primitive as one can imagine.

In the matter of possession of weapons, they cite the growing use of violence in the United States, as the reason for promoting the use and possession of weapons to allow the citizen to protect himself and his family against that violence. Any attempt to limit the right to possess weapons is seen as un-American and dangerous liberal socialist policy which should itself be outlawed. The fact that the increasing use of violence is directly correlated with the increased use and possession of weapons does not enter into their thinking. Having yet more guns on the street is the solution to the problem of violence on the street. The larger the arsenal the safer we become, isn’t that right? Self-protection and isolationism appear to be the continuing mantra. To see and hear so called political representatives, now members of congress, linking patriotism with the second amendment, is beyond belief.

The insanity and irrational thinking supporting this proposition prevails across the globe. The idea that might makes right seems to be so deeply engrained in human beings, that any attempt to change that point of view is seen as weak and feeble socialist clap trap. The idea that reason, intellect, rational, intelligent and educated thinking might have something to offer is nonsense.

To promote the possession of weapons, whilst at the same time, railing against the State of Iran for having the temerity to wish to possess its own nuclear arsenal is par for the course. Those political representatives who do that, see no contradiction in their thinking. Iran could easily argue that, given the increase and prevalence of violence throughout the world it is vital that they have the appropriate arsenal with which to defend themselves and their families. Hypocrisy is never a healthy political position to adopt.

Dictatorships, fascism, extreme governments of any kind, can only exist if they are allowed to do so. If nothing else, the passage of time has revealed this as true a statement as one can make.

And yet:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.  This from Edmund Burke, an Irish conservative politician and philosopher. Burke was Member of Parliament for Malton between 18 October 1780 – 20 June 1794 and was Paymaster of the Forces between 16 April 1783 – 8 January 1784. William Pitt the Younger became Prime Minister, aged 24, on the 19^th December 1783. In a speech to the House of Commons, as Member for the constituency of Appleby, on the 18^th November 1783, William Pitt stated “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” This from a tory conservative. These two were in the same cabinet of government. 

They could argue that the triumph of evil might be the taking away of guns, and that the good men are those who might allow that to happen. Indeed, the plea for infringing the human freedom to possess a weapon as stated in the second amendment, may well be the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves. This would be, in effect, the argument of the new republicans. Indeed, Marjorie Taylor Green likened the attempts to get the covid vaccination program accelerated, by medical personnel going door to door, as the equivalent of Hitler’s Brown Shirts. In her eyes, the democrats are the fascists. The fact of her ignorance of history and many other things, is neither here nor there, but her ignorance is a magnet to the ignorant, and her popularity swells. 

However, I do not believe that either Burke or Pitt intended for their comments to support the contention that “my way or no way” thinking is in any way rational. Their expressed views are in line with most declarations of Human Rights. Furthermore, nowhere, in any document purporting to list those matters which are part of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is it suggested that the right to bear arms is a human right, except in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. That constitution is not a universal declaration of human rights. It is a document purporting to be the blue print for the formation of the Government of the United States of America. The first ten amendments are called a ‘Bill of Rights’ and are intended solely for citizens of the United States. They do not have the force of law anywhere except in the United States. Indeed, if you are not a citizen, you do not qualify for its protection.

So I would ask that those citizens of the United States who consider themselves good men to do anything, small or large, to stand up to the likes of Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham and many others, and make their poster boy Trump disappear, finally, from the public scene.  How long must this charade go on? The world is weary of this American crisis.

That 2^nd amendment is an “amendment”. As such, it can be undone, just as the 18^th Amendment (Prohibition) was undone by the 21^st Amendment. It is not rewriting the Constitution; it is amending the Constitution. Conditions of violence and gangsterism that prevailed as a result of the introduction of prohibition by the 18^th amendment led to its reversal by the 21^st. Surely the conditions of violence and gangsterism that currently prevail in the United States should lead to its reversal rather that the increase of gun ownership.  Or is it that the necessity for a drink is just as great as the desire to kill? Is that the American Dream?

WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN A DIGITAL WORLD ?

Kupala Night is a traditional Slavic festival that was originally celebrated on the shortest night of the year between the 21^st and 24^th June, however in Eastern Slavic countries according to traditional Julian Calendar it is celebrated between the 67^th and 7^th July (Belarus, Russia and Ukraine). The celebration relates to the summer solstice. In any event it has a long history.

 

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko, attending the festival apparently said::

“We know that Belarusians’ striving for independence is explained by unsubmissive and freedom-loving nature of our ancestors who never were slaves or slave owners. And never in their history were they aggressors, quite the opposite, they always tried to maintain peace and accord with their closest neighbours. Therefore, the unity of the people of Belarus in their ethnic, cultural and religious diversity is unshakable…We are trying to stick to these traditions today. Hence our entire policy. We do not claim foreign lands. We do not want to cause trouble for our neighbours and distant nations. We want to live in peace and harmony with everyone…That is why we cannot allow anyone to think of us as of slaves. More than that, we cannot allow ourselves to turn into slaves. We are a nation. A nation who, for the first time in hundreds of years, built their independent and sovereign state that always differs from others in terms of character, morals and traditions. We are Belarusians and we have all features of a nation. These national traits come from the depth of history. It was not me who invented them,”

 

I cannot begin to describe the depths of hypocrisy these statements provoke. Similarly we have Donald Trump claiming that there are lies being told about him by “them” and if “they” repeat the statements often enough, people might believe “them”. He says this while he repeats for the umpteenth time that the election was a fraud.  He has no idea of what he actually says. He is now seeking to bring an action against various media companies and their CEO’s for denying him freedom of speech. In doing so he is inviting people to send him money to help in his litigation. Why does he need to raise funds? He is meant to be a billionaire, a couple of million dollars would surely cover the costs, even in a US court. Pocket change for him. Do his followers not know that?

 

In any event, he is constantly reported on the news. His actions are reported on in the United States on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News, Newsmax etc. In addition his antics are covered by the BBC, France 2, RTL in Germany, RAI in Italy, and all major television networks throughout the European Union and Sky Satellite Television across the world. So in what way is his freedom of speech being curtailed. This frivolous lawsuit, is actually a ploy to increase media coverage by claiming his constitutional rights are being diminished by not being allowed on Facebook and Twitter. The implication of course is that both those social media companies have a far greater audience and influence over the internet, than the whole of the world’s television and radio networks around the globe.  The digital world is clearly of greater value to Mr Trump and his followers than the reality of the physical world.  To be shut out is clearly a difficulty for him, although not a great difficulty given the amount of material currently on line in spite of being barred from Facebook and Twitter.

 

Therein lies the problem of freedom of speech. Every country subscribes in one way or another to the concept of free speech. Some countries do seem to have a curious idea of free speech and seek to control what is actually said by people exercising their right to speak freely; however, what goes out on the internet (such as this blog) is, to all intent and purposes, entirely free from censorship or control of any kind. A keyboard and an internet connection are all that is required. Any smartphone will do. There are any number of sites on which one can post or display words, images and sounds.

 

As a result every form of behaviour is attached in some way to the world wide web. We have pornography of all kinds, adolescent grooming, financial scams, ransom threats, chicanery and deception of all sorts, as well as how to do it yourself stuff, lectures from noted university professors, artistic exhibitions, theatre, analysis programs, forums, informative useful stuff as well as the ability to order in supplies, books, entertainments and paid for work. The list is endless and it is essentially uncensored and practically impossible to control. So how does one deal with the freedom of speech of the scammer, the hate monger, the deviants and the dangerous?

 

There are laws already in existence to deal with some criminal activity provided one can trace the originator’s whereabout. Laws relating to thievery and dishonesty of any kind are explicit and so long as one can pinpoint the person concerned, there is no need for any additional legislation. Likewise laws relating to the protection and safety of the person’s physical being are sufficient, provided one can find and trace the perpetrator. Committing the crime with a digital record is handing the evidence to authorities as it is being produced. The difficulty is always tracing the origins of that evidence. We know that is sometimes not an easy thing to do.

 

What is more problematic is the dissemination of ideas and points of view. Prejudice and bigotry are not so easy. The likes of Lukashenko, Putin, Trump, their acolytes, fervent supporters and imitators are all able to spew their poison and hypocrisy over the web, just as I am able to post a blog.

 

The fact that I refer to these people as gangsters may be very offensive to many people. That their behaviour and its consequences are actually recorded for all to see, provides me with some evidence, but is it conclusive evidence? Is my interpretation of the facts I observe, and take in, a correct view? Many will think not. I am free to speak, but should what I say be controlled and if so, by whom or what?  

 

One cannot escape the fact that, as well as some very worthwhile stuff, real harm is being done over the internet. It is a global problem and clearly requires a global solution. There are some sites in one country that are unavailable in others. Although I can gain access to some programs on the French ARTE network, I cannot gain general access in the same way that I can to BBC’s iPlayer. Nonetheless the web is universal and although gaining access to some sites can be controlled by the site controller, there are clearly ways round as can be shown by any competent hacker. I am not one, not even of any kind.

 

So we come back to the question of regulating the global network itself or the ability to gain access to the global network. Does it even need to be done? If so, then how? These are problems I currently ponder, given the state of the current world I live in. Any ideas would be welcome.

If it is to be left to the state and its legislative process to produce an answer, then I have little faith in the likes of Boris and his Gang to reach any acceptable solution so far as the UK is concerned.  That bit of free speech will obviously offend some, like Boris and his Gang. They might even try to suppress it. What do we do?

MORE THAN A LITTLE TROUBLING

On the same day as I put out my blog on 9th July concerning the matter of pointing a laser in someone's eye, I was sent the following article which was published, that day, in the Spectator -  The Author Philip Patrick asks "Am I being a killjoy here? Does this matter? Does anyone care?" Somebody clearly does, but, I leave it to you to decide - Please read in conjunction with blog of 9th July 2021.

From the SPECTATOR :

Philip Patrick

Have Southgate’s England lost their moral compass?

9 July 2021, 12:05pm

Back in the 1980s the BBC Match of the Day opening credits featured a clip of Manchester United winger Mickey Thomas prostrate on the pitch. He raises himself up and gives a saucy wink to the camera. The implication was that he had ‘won’ a penalty and was cheekily acknowledging his successful deceit.

Contrast with Raheem Sterling on Wednesday night. It’s generally accepted that if there was any contact between the England striker and the body parts of various Danish defenders swarming around him, it was minimal, and not enough to send him tumbling to the ground. And certainly not worth a crucial penalty. But Sterling seemed oblivious, no guilty look, no sly wink to anyone, not even a furtive glance at the third official. And when the ball went in, there was nothing but the purest triumphant joy.

Similarly, Harry Kane, tremendous striker no doubt, but a player who has acquired something of a reputation for what FIFA tactfully describes as ‘simulation’ but is more commonly known as ‘diving’. He has never seemed remotely concerned by the accusations.

Clearly, football is a rough, tough, cynical game, and professionalism/gamesmanship/cheating – call it what you will – has a long history. But what does seem to have changed with this England team is the players’ perception of such tactics. Mickey Thomas clearly didn’t care too much about how his penalty was won, but at least he appears to have been conscious that some might have regarded it as a bit naughty. Sterling, Kane, and so many others, appear simply unaware that moral judgements can be applied to their on-field tactics.

A perhaps more disturbing example of how attitudes have changed in the Southgate era occurred during the 2018 World Cup. England met Belgium in the final group game, with both sides having already qualified for the next round. The only issue at stake was who would finish first and second in the group. Perversely, first place meant a significantly tougher route to the final, with Brazil and France looming; while second place saw the relatively weak Colombia and Sweden as likely opponents.

What followed was one of the strangest games in England’s World Cup history. The firing-on-all-cylinders Kane was rested, along with seven others. The main concern, of both sides, seemed to be not to pick up injuries or cautions. The teams were booed at half time and the referee added barely a single second at the end of the weird encounter. 

Did England even try to win? The second-string team selection suggested that if they did, they didn’t try terribly hard; and the air of satisfaction at the end (Belgium won 1-0 with a strange goal) raises suspicions further. ‘Streetwise England…. lose but win?’ wondered the Daily Telegraph. 

Not much has been written or said about this fixture since. It seems to have been deposited into the memory hole of the official history of Southgate’s England. But it was a troubling, and somewhat telling, encounter.

Am I being a killjoy here? Does this matter? Does anyone care? The evidence suggests the players do not; or, if they do, they keep very quiet about it. But how about the fans? The understandable euphoria at the end of Wednesday’s game overwhelmed the consciences of many. But, as the emotions settled and the footage has been reviewed, there have been signs of a growing unease, at least amongst a portion of the support.

A process of rationalisation has begun, starting with a scramble for convenient euphemisms and mitigation. The penalty was not incorrectly awarded, but ‘soft’. Kane should have had one earlier. The Danes were hacking away at England players all game, and their free-kick goal shouldn’t have been allowed to stand. And anyway what about Frank Lampard in 2010, or Maradona in 1986? England were due a bit of a break. And so on.

But none of it really washes. Tempting as it is to cast aside the nagging moral qualms and revel in a gutsy England win, surrendering to the juicy prospect of a historic final against Italy on Sunday, I can’t quite do it.

Sterling dived. That doesn’t put him beyond the pale. He needn't be cast out of polite society. But he dived. Maybe he was barely aware of it himself. Maybe, under intense pressure, with the adrenaline swirling, and legs and arms thrashing around him, he even convinced himself that he had been fouled. It’s not a capital offence. But let's at least be honest about what happened.

There is much to admire about Southgate’s England, yet the fact that not a single member of the team – a team so insistent on displaying its concern for racial justice (taking the knee) and social justice (Pride armbands) – seems to have recognised and acknowledged this lapse of sporting justice, even with a sly wink, is just a little troubling.

Written by Philip Patrick

Philip Patrick is a lecturer at a Tokyo university and contributing writer at the Japan Times

 

My personal view is that it actually does matter and everyone should care, but by the tone of the news reporting and plaudits being offered up over the teams performance against Denmark, nobody cares. I think it is more than a little troubling. Shame.

POINTING A LASER IN SOMEONE'S EYE IS SERIOUS

England face Uefa censure after laser pointer shone at Kasper Schmeichel

• Disciplinary proceedings opened after Euro 2020 semi-final
• England also charged over booing of Danish anthem

Uefa has charged England after a laser pointer was shone in the face of the Denmark goalkeeper, Kasper Schmeichel, as he was about to face Harry Kane’s penalty in Wednesday’s Euro 2020 semi-final at Wembley.

Schmeichel saved the penalty but Kane scored from the rebound to set up England's 2-1 victory and book a place in Sunday’s final against Italy.

The case will be dealt with by the Uefa Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body, with England likely to face a fine. In 2008, Lyon had to pay $5,000 for “incidents of an unsporting nature” after a fan aimed a laser pen at Cristiano Ronaldo during a Champions League match against Manchester United.

 

 

The incident was widely condemned, with ITV presenter Mark Pougatch describing the perpetrator as “an idiot”.

“We can just hope that it didn’t put Kasper Schmeichel off, because it’s stupid and he doesn’t deserve that,” he said. “That sort of thing, nobody wants to see.”

England have also been charged with the booing of the Danish anthem and the lighting of fireworks inside the stadium.

Boris Johnson’s official spokesman said: “Uefa are looking into that, that’s a matter for them but it’s not something we would want to see.”

Johnson also urged fans not to boo teams during their national anthem. “We don’t want fans to be booing teams. We want fans to be showing support and being respectful,” he said.

England came from behind after Mikkel Damsgaard’s free-kick gave Denmark the lead. Simon Kjær’s own goal levelled for Gareth Southgate’s side and Kane booked England’s first major tournament final for 55 years when he followed up his missed penalty after Raheem Sterling was tripped by Joakim Mæhle.

England now play Italy at Wembley on Sunday aiming to win their first major trophy since lifting the World Cup in 1966.

(Guardian article published Thursday July 8th 2021 )

I find the whole tenor of this item in the Guardian more than somewhat shameful. Uefa should disqualify England from the competition and have Denmark take the field in the final against the Italians instead. It is not just some ‘idiot’. It is the entire nation.

Boris Johnson’s official spokesman’s comment is woefully inadequate, and dismisses the problem as someone else’s. He lays it off on Uefa claiming ‘it’s not something we would want to see’ minimising the full implications of the perfidy of the actions including the racist and xenophobic booing of the Danish anthem.

What manner of people have the British become. The incidents of scamming and deceit has increased to astronomical proportions. Hardly a day goes by without some text, phone call or email, designed to steal and deceive, comes our way.. One cannot just blame ‘foreigners’ on the internet. The calls and texts emanate from England.  Reporting the various incidents to the police on line (impossible to get through on the phone) is useless as they are seemingly powerless to do anything about it.

It is not surprising when you have a government whose members have no regard for integrity, codes of conduct, or honestly trying to work for the entire country as opposed to feathering their own nests and those of their girlfriends and cronies.

A very fine example for the youth and next generation of people, some of whom may even seek to become politicians or involve themselves in public service. It appears that scheming, scamming and obfuscation are the order of the day.

To flush aside and dismiss the pointing of a laser into someone’s eyes with a feeble condemnation is the height of irresponsibility, fully in keeping with Boris Johnson’s spokesperson, even Boris himself.

So eager are the nation for England to win a football game that they have passed any form of decency, or so called, sportsmanlike conduct. The claim of “It’s not the winning, it’s how you play the game” is clearly an antiquated and meaningless phrase designed for losers.

I am sorry for the team, but I am infinitely more distraught over what has been a drastic decline in the character of the nation. Violence and deception are all around us. A young man was stabbed to death a couple of days ago within 500 yards of my home.

This decline starts at the top. We have elected a pack of hyenas to run the country. I use the term in the folkloric sense: Hyenas feature prominently in the folklore and mythology of human cultures that live alongside them. Hyenas are commonly viewed as frightening and worthy of contempt. In some cultures, hyenas are thought to influence people's spirits, rob graves, and steal livestock and children.

My view is that the England team should stand down. At the very least there should be an immediate meeting of Uefa to impose sanctions and disqualification of the team. The entire nation should own up to the reality of what the booing and laser pointing actually represents. I am not trying to preach morals, but merely pointing out that enough is enough. If the people do not stop the rot it will bring the entire edifice down into a chaotic free for all, giving way entirely to the scammers and gangsters. 

I now hope the Italians will administer the appropriate punishment.