MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4388524833 · doi:10.5406/21558450.49.3.10

Bidding for the 1968 Olympic Games: International Sport's Cold War Battle with NATO

2022· article· en· W4388524833 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph W. Eaton

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Sport History · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGermanBattlePolitical scienceCompetition (biology)AllianceDoctrineBiddingDiplomacyMilitary doctrineAthletesLawAdvertisingPoliticsPolitical economySociologyHistoryBusinessMarketingAncient history

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In Bidding for the 1968 Olympic Games: International Sport's Cold War Battle with NATO, Heather L. Dichter analyzes the competition to host the 1968 Olympic Games. Dichter promises to detail “how and why NATO and its member states confronted sport during the height of the Cold War and how international sport responded to this overt political interference” (ix). She succeeds, giving us new perspectives on how sport and NATO interacted during the 1960s.Dichter focuses on the German problem—whether and how to include athletes from East Germany in international sports competition. NATO adhered to the Hallstein Doctrine, a policy of nonrecognition of East Germany, and a corresponding restriction on travel. Given the high visibility of sport, the exclusion of East German athletes from competition became a problem for the alliance. East Germany played the victim, complaining about exclusion while sometimes submitting incomplete or late travel documents, despite it having built the Berlin Wall and restricted the egress of its citizens. NATO was on the losing side of sports diplomacy. Moreover, NATO's hardline was challenged by the need of potential host cities to satisfy the IOC and international sports federations and by domestic disapproval within some NATO countries at the exclusion of top-ranked East German athletes. In 1962, during the lead-up to site selection for the 1968 Olympics, the exclusion of East German athletes and teams from international sports competitions in NATO countries produced negative publicity for the alliance, most notably during the Alpine world ski championship at Chamonix, France, and the ice hockey world championships at Colorado Springs.When it came to the competition for the 1968 Olympic Games, NATO member states competed against one another in a game of national self-interest. NATO member nations offered five bids for the 1968 Olympic Games—Detroit and Lyon (summer) and Calgary, Grenoble, and Lake Placid, New York (winter). Dichter demonstrates that the debate over travel restrictions is a perfect lens to understand the role smaller nations played within NATO. Since decisions related to sport were not the life-or-death military matters that might cripple the alliance, “all member states could voice their views, particularly with the hope that they could achieve a change in NATO policy” (85). Canada and Norway—powers in winter sport—boxed above their weight when it came to intra-NATO discussions on the travel question. Canada, eager to host its first Olympics, was willing to challenge the NATO hardline on East German travel and upset its allies to win the games for Calgary. Norway, focused on the more realistic chance of hosting the 1966 Nordic skiing championships, similarly shifted against the agreed policy.The only athlete who plays any substantial role in Bidding for the 1968 Olympic Games is the East German ski jumper Helmut Recknagel, the 1960 Olympic champion. In 1962, Recknagel was denied entry into Norway to participate in the annual Holmenkollen ski festival. The exclusion of Recknagel, a previous champion at Holmenkollen, fueled fears that Norwegian public opinion might turn against NATO, a fascinating and previously forgotten episode.Dichter's analysis complicates traditional accounts of the workings of NATO. Deliberations in Washington and Paris become secondary to the actions of smaller nations, candidate host cities, and sport federations, all attempting to influence the policy on travel. Heavy-handed diplomatic attempts on the part of the United States on behalf of Detroit's bid and West Germany's pleading for the nonrecognition of East Germany proved counterproductive, as Avery Brundage and the International Olympic Committee stood firm on their position that politics and the Olympics should never mix.Despite the prevailing view that Lyon and Detroit were the favorites for the 1968 Summer Olympics, Mexico City won in the first round of voting due to a host of factors, including the German problem. The surprise Grenoble victory for the Winter Olympics in the third round of voting complicates the idea that the question of athlete entry dominated, though Dichter cites the possible role of a French diplomat, in an informal discussion with Brundage, in improving the French city's chances.As Dichter shows, international sport became “the earliest field where NATO member states accepted détente with East Germany,” though the inspirations for détente were less noble than usually understood (161). In her compelling account, détente represents a response to the failures of NATO public diplomacy combined with national self-interest, the desire to host international sporting competitions.Some readers might expect more comparisons between the German problem and the matter of the two Chinas at the Olympics. While the China question proved more intractable, West Germany's capitulation on the matter of the East German Olympic team was momentous. Still, few historians will be able to match Dichter's abilities as a linguist and practitioner of international history. Crafted from archives in eight countries with deftly combined storylines, Bidding for the 1968 Olympic Games sets a high bar for scholars of sports diplomacy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,171
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,276
Écart entre enseignants0,248 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Sport HistoryMême sujetSport and Mega-Event ImpactsTravaux en français237 207