The Balkan Games and Balkan Politics in the Interwar Years 1929 – 1939

Politicians in Pursuit of Peace

Penelope Kissoudi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317967606
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia dell'Europa orientale

The Balkan Games resulted on the one hand from the growth of modern European sport and the unsatisfactory performances of the Balkan athletes at national and international level, and on the other hand, from a desire to bring the Balkan peoples together in peace and concord. The Games were initiated in Athens in 1929 and increasingly became an integral part of the political, cultural and social life of the area. The common global reality is that when an athletic event is staged, attempted friendship seldom receives priority. In the 1930s, however, the Balkan Games provided a rare example of an international athletic event bringing antagonistic states together in friendship. This consideration of the significance of the Balkan Games as an instrument of political optimism provides clear evidence of the occasional positive influence of sport in politics. The work is a case-study of interest to political and social scientists and to historians of Europe and sport.

This book was previously published as a special issue of the International Journal of the History of Sport.

Prologue: Argument — the Balkan Games and Political Purpose

The Balkan Games between the wars are examined in this study. It is a consideration of the relationship between politics and sport. It seeks to discover to what extent the games met the expectations of its founders as a means of cultural and political collaboration in a region fractured by traditional hostility and interminable controversy. The influence of the games on the political relationships between Balkan states, beset by long-established suspicions and national confrontations and eventually the consequent desire for a lasting regional stability, are examined in order to assess the influence upon these relationships of the games. In this way, the value of the games as political instrument of rapprochement becomes evident.

However, they were not a lasting political panacea. They could not be. History was against them. But for a time they were a source of association, goodwill and cooperation, and a force for modernity. As such, the Balkan Games were an attempt at a peaceful alternative to diplomatic, political and military ‘war’. This is an original investigation. The few published essays on the games do not deal with their political dimensions. The study initially provides background material on the period’s significant political events and then for the first time describes and analyses the resulting efforts initiated by the Greeks in Athens in 1929 to establish and promote the games. The major role of Greece in this respect, and the early deliberations between 1924 and 1929 of Balkan representatives, are newly examined. Furthermore, the measures taken by the Venizelos government (1928–32) to support the games in general, and to promote modern sport in Greece in particular, also for the first time come under close scrutiny.

The use of sport for political reasons is not always positive. This study aims to demonstrate that sport is capable on occasion of bringing distrustful peoples of different cultural and political backgrounds together in at least momentary peace and unity. The political background of the Balkans beyond Greece prior to the creation of the games is set down in some detail in order to allow comparison between the relatively harmonious coexistence of the Balkan nations in the world of sport with the long-standing hostilities, clashes and confrontations of the world of politics. Admirably, the games overcame, to a degree, political animosities; established friendly contact between athletes, government representatives, diplomatic and national sports delegates and journalists; and served as a source of amity and understanding. As a consequence, hope for a time for regional political cooperation existed. Despite the tangled Balkan diplomatic scene and the constant transition of trans-Balkan relations from good to bad and vice versa, the games were held annually according to agreed principles that fostered cooperation. As such, they provide a case study of sport as a form of political benevolence and it is hoped, therefore, that this exploration will be an addition to the body of literature that deals with the constructive role of sport in the modern world.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks are due to Professor J.A. Mangan for editorial support, precious comments and encouragement. Meticulous in textual scrutiny and enthusiastic in approach, he has been a precious mentor. From start to finish, he supported my efforts and offered constant and generous advice. I am also grateful to Dr Frank Galligan for careful textual attention and for being so approachable and supportive.

Sport, Politics and International Relations in the Twentieth Century

Relationship between Sport and Politics

Before a brief discussion about the relationship between sport and politics it might be useful to mention some of the definitions that have been given to the terms ‘sport’ and ‘politics’, both of which are, however, difficult to define precisely. Allison defined the term sport as ‘the institutionalization of skill and prowess’, [1] while Jay provided a more comprehensive definition of sport being an ‘institutionalized competitive activity that involves vigorous physical exertion or the use of relatively complex physical skills by individuals whose participation is motivated by a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors’. [2]

As for the term politics, Millar suggested that ‘politics is concerned with the use of government to resolve conflict in the direction of change or in the prevention of change’, [3] while Leftwich claimed that ‘politics is at the heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public and private, in all human groups, institutions and societies, not just some of them’. [4] One of the common clichés associated with sport is that ‘sport and politics should not mix’, while the regularity with which athletes, administrators and politicians express the preference for a clear distinction between the two is evident from the widespread feeling that these involved in sport should aspire to high ideals and not to the intrigues of politics. [5] A common-sense view of politics and a broad knowledge of history, however, suggest that the ‘politics of sport’ exists to a considerable degree. What needs explanation is the assertion by sports representatives and politicians that sport is quite separate from politics and does not raise political issues. Sport and politics cannot be isolated. Three interrelated conceptions of politics need to be noted in order to expand upon this point. The first is the idea that politics is simply a term for the matters involving governments. In this sense, a matter becomes ‘political’ when the state is involved. The significant point is that in some ways governments are inevitably involved with sport. Sport is subject to the laws of the state, although it sometimes seeks special treatment. [6]

A second related view of politics is that it involves issues of power, control and influence over people’s behaviour. The view of ‘politics as power’ is a reminder that sport has its own internal political struggles even when governments are not directly involved. Throughout the world sport is controlled by international and national ruling bodies that are considered to have the same jurisdiction as the state in sports matters, while the international bodies are non-governmental organizations. These bodies have power over sport. They determine the rules, access to competition, the structure and rewards of competitions, the acceptability of technology innovation and so on. Sports federations and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) operate on the basis that they recognize only one ruling body in every state. In the second half of the twentieth century, the IOC took several years to decide how to handle matters concerning the sports associations of China, North and South Korea and those of East and West Germany. Recognition of any sports body inevitably provided recognition of the regime within which that sports body operated. In the case of South Africa, however, its social and economic system, which did not allow sport to be practised in accordance with the IOC’s rules, was the official reason for excluding it from the Olympic movement in 1970. [7]

Thirdly, there is no doubt that sport is capable of bringing together a large number of people and that increasingly it has played an important role in trans-national relations and has been recognized as a major social and cultural institution. [8] Modern sport emerged from the efforts of individuals and private groups and in this sense it is a social innovation that has its roots in the emergence of a new form of sociability. [9] Sport is recognized as a social and political phenomenon. In the last third of the nineteenth century its supporters could hardly have imagined that sporting events would have a great impact on public opinion and would become an instrument of international policy. Sport, sports associations and sports representatives had not been recognized as potential actors in social and cultural life, economics and politics. Moreover, in Europe, for historical reasons relating to the constitution of the nation state, it was not sport but gymnastics, shooting and military instruction that had priority. The gymnastic societies became the pedagogical and political instruments for the formation of national identity. During the 1920s, however, sport began to attract national and international interest, particularly in Europe. [10]

It is believed that sporting victories by a national team improve and reinforce the image of the competing state and display the superiority of its political regime. During the 1930s a small portion of the French public were fascinated by authoritarian regimes due to the fact that Italian and German athletes achieved success and in doing so enhanced national prestige and pride as well as that of their respective political regimes. More importantly, the freezing or banning of sports events between national teams exemplifies the political usage of sport as a means of reprisal and/or disapproval. [11] For instance, in September 1919, the French football team, following the injunction of British sports federations, refused to meet the Swiss team since it had played a match against the Germans. The aim was to influence public opinion and consequently to change the foreign policy of the government. There were however cases where a crisis in sport did not result from political tension between competing states. In 1910, for example, the Union of French Societies of Athletic Sports (USFSA) broke offrelations with the International Football Association (FIFA) and banned its members from playing against any teams that were affiliated to FIFA. In addition, the conflict that was generated by rugby early in the 1930s separated France and Britain and led to cool relations in matches played in the Five Nations Tournament. A football match in 1936 between Holland and Germany was cancelled a few days before the marriage of Princess Juliana, successor to the Netherlands throne, to the German Prince Bernard de Lippe, for fear of anti-German demonstrations. This fact motivated the Reich to break offsports relations with the Netherlands. In the same way, the French government banned its national football team from meeting Italy and Portugal in 1937 and Germany in 1938 for fear of provoking popular protest – even though the Germans stated that the French footballers would be protected against any nationalistic and aggressive action. [12]

Since sport can be easily integrated into government projects, such policies are commonly inspired and put into action by ministers. A government may give instructions to its representatives, such as the minister of sport or even the presidents of the national sports federations. This therefore poses the problem of the independence of national sports bodies from governmental policy or that of the meddling of politics in sports affairs. [13] One characteristic example of government use of sport to promote its own political ideology was Hitler’s use (or abuse) of the 1936 Olympics. Hitler was especially interested in using the games to promote the Nazi ideology of Aryan supremacy. The 1936 Olympics, with its magnificent new sports facilities, were intended to glorify the Nazi regime and divert the attention of the world from the political situation in Germany. Only a year before, Hitler had passed a number of laws that took away many of the rights of Jews in Germany. Thousands of Jews had already been beaten, tortured and killed in concentration camps. Anyone who criticized the Nazis was imprisoned or executed. [14] Hitler’s government devoted considerable resources to the training of German athletes, who won 89 medals – that is, 23 medals more than the athletes of the United States of America and over four times as many as any other state. This is why the performance of Jesse Owens, an African-American athlete, was so important in the 1936 games. Owens’s four gold medals and world records challenged Hitler’s ideology of Nordic supremacy. [15]

Nazism represented an extreme right-wing form of government, organized to advance an aggressive nationalism. Among its manifestations was a commitment to rid Germany of any Jewish presence and an attempt to propagandize the supremacy of the race. The anti-Semitism that characterized Nazism also affected sport. In 1933, when the boycott of Jewish business came into effect, the organizing bodies of sport were also required to exclude Jewish performers and officials. Two years later there was a complete segregation in German sport, something that contradicted the Olympic ideals. In the United States of America, an abortive boycott campaign targeting the proposed 1936 Olympics failed to gain support. Nevertheless, the Germans headed the medal table in 1936 and demonstrated that they were administratively capable, generous, and peace-loving people. [16]

After the Se...