The Ironic Site of the Maccabi Games

Stuart Dezenhall is a graduate of Bucknell University. His senior  term papers were on the  1919 Black Sox scandal, the 1936 Berlin Olympics and  the national impact of Muhammad Ali. In the last several years he has been on the public relations staffs of the Washington Redskins, Detroit Lions and New York Jets.

The 2015 European Maccabi Games— the major European Jewish sports event of the year, are being held in Berlin, the same site of the 1936 Olympics that banned German Jews from participation under Adolf Hitler’s Nazi reign. This event takes place every four years in Europe, two years after the quadrennial Maccabiah Games are held in Israel.

This year’s 14th installment of the European Maccabi Games is taking place in the very same buildings of the Reichsportfeld complex that the Nazi’s built to usher in and host the 1936 Games.

Leading into the 1936 Olympics, the United States debated if it should send athletes to Berlin. Jewish-Americans were largely against American participation given rampant Nazi anti-Semitism.

With loud voices on both sides of the debate, the Jewish and mainstream American press adhered to a national culture of isolationism and forewent editorialization in their coverage. Journalists covered the controversy, but mostly without taking sides.

Coverage of the European Maccabi Games being held in Berlin has been largely positive, with German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere saying, “This is the stadium where the Olympic games were exploited by Hitler. To hold on that spot a Jewish sporting event like the Maccabi Games, that is an important and nice message.” [1]

What follows is a history of the press coverage of the American debate over participation in the 1936 Olympics that provides a backdrop to the positive sentiments around the current Maccabi Games and emphasizes the irony of Jewish athletes competing in Berlin.

In the early 1930s, the U.S. held a policy of isolationism – not meddling in affairs of totalitarian European governments. The mainstream U.S. press avoided taking sides in the debate over American participation as an observance of the isolationist environment, just as the Jewish press faced pressures of Americanization that motivated minorities to adopt an American ethos and shed their ethnic identities.

Hitler initially denounced the Olympics as, “An invasion of Jews and Freemasons…a play inspired by Judaism which cannot possibly be put on in a Reich ruled by National Socialists.” [2]

He eventually realized the massive propaganda opportunities that hosting the Olympics created and altered his stance. Assurance that Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies were absent from German society was crucial to the debate over American participation, a fight led by American Olympic Committee President Avery Brundage.

He and International Olympic Committee members visited Germany in 1933 to gauge the presence of anti-Semitism and meet with German Olympic officials who provided a written guarantee that all participants, regardless of race or religion, would be accepted and treated equally in Berlin. With this pledge, Brundage and IOC officials reported to be satisfied with the lack of observable discrimination.

Following New York Times reports that the German head of the Olympics had been relieved of his duties due to partial Jewish descent, [3] Brundage faced questions regarding rising boycott movements, saying, “If Jews were barred from American Olympic teams…I doubt that the United States would be represented in Berlin in 1936.” [4]

Brundage’s attempted placation of pro-boycotters was covered in Jewish and mainstream American newspapers, though journalists did not take sides. The Washington Post and Associated Press covered growing boycott movements made by the American Jewish Congress [5] and Amateur Athletic Union factions. [6] Subsequent surveys of Germany by Brundage and the IOC yielded further objective attention in the press.

A New York Times article that dispassionately covered Brundage’s blatantly insufficient investigation (given that he found that Jewish club teams in Germany had been forced to find their own separate training facilities) is indicative of the tenor of reporting of the pre-Olympic saga. [7]

In the article, Brundage tipped his pro-participation hand, urging Americans to begin training for the Olympics.[8] Shortly after Brundage’s investigation, the AOC unanimously voted for U.S. participation. Newspapers reported this without complaint or support.

Following the vote, the boycott movement gained steam. In addition to Jewish-Americans, government officials, Catholic and Protestant organizations, various university deans and church pastors, and AAU leader Judge Jeremiah Mahoney were vocally against American participation.

Despite a diverse allegiance and 43 percent of the country in support of a boycott, [9] the Jewish press remained neutral. Though printing pro-boycott articles would not have been controversial to Jewish readership, the Jewish press existed within a larger American society resistant to outside opinions and cultures.

The Jewish press reported evidence of Jewish exclusion on the German Olympic team but did not editorialize.[10] A Jewish Council article followed the Jewish Congress’ push for the IOC to attempt to have the Olympics withdrawn from Germany with distinct objectivity. [11] The article noted the Jewish Congress’ pro-boycott position but did not openly support it.

The mainstream press was similar. When the AAU had anti-German delegates speak at a committee meeting, the Washington Post [12] and New York Times [13] covered it. The Los Angeles Times reported on U.S. Senator Peter G. Gerry’s address voicing his opinion that America should withdraw from the Olympics due to Nazi policy against Jews and Catholics. [14] Washington Post journalist Bob Dulaney called the debate “one of the greatest sports controversies this country has seen,” [15] and summarized both sides’ arguments.

In October of 1935, several more figures and groups joined the debate. Methodist pastors sent an open letter to Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish religious officials voicing their favor of boycotting the Olympics based on the discriminatory nature of the Nazi regime. [16]

The New York Times reported that Dean Frederick B. Robinson of City College voiced his preference for Jewish participation to give a strong showing in the face of Nazi leaders. [17] Clergyman and author Dr. Charles S. Macfarland came out in favor of a boycott movement, saying, “[Germany’s Nazi government’s] policies in sports are such as to violate these basic principles of human life.” [18]

YMCA leaders opposed a boycott because, “There are other ways in which American citizens can express their disapproval of Nazi German discrimination against Jews.” [19] In each case, journalists covered the opinions of those involved in the debate without injecting their own.

In late 1935, the AAU vote on upholding the AOC’s original decision remained the final step in assuring American participation. AAU President Judge Mahoney called an opponent, IOC representative Brigadier General Charles H. Sherrill, “No more a friend of the Jew than is Hitler,” in an effort to gain support of Jewish war veterans. [20] A Washington Post article portrayed both Mahoney and Brundage as two men who held, “Unalterable attitudes on the matter.” [21] Mahoney secured Southern and Eastern AAU support while Brundage maintained support of the Metropolitan AAU and noted his personal interactions with Olympic athletes, saying that of the 139 that had written him, 138 favored American participation. In a 58 and ¼ to 55 and ¾ vote in favor of participation, Brundage secured the AAU’s support to essentially end the debate. [22]

Though boycott movements persisted, it was officially decided by the governing bodies that America would be present in the 1936 Berlin Olympics, though individual athletes could refuse to participate (and some of Jewish origin were suspiciously replaced, including runners Marty Glickman and Sam Stoller). As with previous milestones in the debate, the coverage was impartial, even with the debate settled. [23]

It is interesting to look at the debate in America, covered with a lack of sensationalism that was so prevalent within the debate itself, in retrospect. That the Jewish press offered no calls for boycotts to what are now referred to as the Nazi Olympics is a staggering thought; perhaps just as unthinkable as it is that the 2015 European Maccabi Games are taking place in the very same Nazi-built Berlin stadiums. This time around, through the tragic history that has made the 2015 event’s setting so ironic, the environment is conducive for 2,300 Jewish athletes from 38 countries to participate without discrimination.