Football is not often linked to warfare, but with the 2018 World Cup underway in Russia – during what some political commentators have deemed a new Cold War – the mixing of people from all over the world will be part of a global governmental competition for prestige. It may not seem like the most straightforward tactic, but football’s ability to bring cultures together previously formed part of the British government’s waging of the original Cold War, in the 1950s.

England’s assumed superiority at football meant that the football association did not enter FIFA’s World Cup until 1950. But in the first two tournaments the national team took part (1950 and 1954), they were rather uncompetitive. Worse, in 1953 the team suffered its first home defeat to a team from outside the British Isles, being crushed by Hungary’s “Magnificent Magyars”. The national game was in disarray with defeat to an iron curtain nation compounding the issue.

Britain did have an ace up its sleeve, however. Many clubs organised exhibition matches against Soviet sides. In the same way that the World Cup provides a great opportunity for Vladimir Putin to showcase the best face of Russia now, so the mid-1950s allowed the post-Stalin Soviet leadership to tell the world that things had changed. What became known as “the thaw” – when the Soviets lessened censorship and repression and attempted to show the benefits that communism could bring – created new opportunities for clubs, and the national team to visit the turf of their ideological rivals.

While sport appeared politically neutral, the government hoped to benefit from these visits. Prior to Arsenal’s 1954 visit to the Soviet Union, the British embassy advised that, “we should urge on the Football Association that they should send out a really first class team, ensure that they are in good condition and that they do not drink too much … This will, at least, ensure that we put up a credible performance”.

Arsenal’s visit was seen as being of national importance, and the government acted to prevent defeat in the sporting arena. A British embassy “scout” even sent a report on the Moscow clubs tactics’ on the basis that “a few remarks … about the standard and tactics of the club teams they will meet may be of interest and of possible help to the British team”.

However, even with the state’s advice, Arsenal lost their match to Moscow Dynamo, 5-0 – a “massacre”, according to the Mirror and Express newspapers – before losing 2-1 to Spartak Moscow in London in November 1954. The limited encounters available to Britons were often regulated by their own government and the Soviet state but they still played a broader role in waging the cultural cold war.

Sporting diplomacy

The next year, the Wolverhampton Wanderers, who were first division champions in 1954 and finished second in 1955, visited the USSR. They took around 100 supporters to Moscow with them, along with both print and broadcast journalists. Though newsreels showed Wolves losing 3-0 to Spartak Moscow, and 3-2 to Moscow Dynamo, a more revealing clip introduced Moscow itself. As Russia will this year, the USSR presented its best face. When the team visited the Kremlin the Pathé voiceover noted that their cameraman was “the first British newsreel man to be allowed inside its towering walls”.

Shots of a giant cannon, Red Square and the mausoleums of Lenin and Stalin completed the tourist iconography of communist Moscow. Outside Lenin’s tomb, British viewers were given a rare glimpse of the Soviet population including “farmers from Kazakhstan and Mongolia”, which helped to reinforce a sense of difference between Britain and the USSR. The commentary concluded with “Surely the iron curtain is melting away at last; may it never return”.

These images of Moscow raised hopes of better relations with the USSR and the possibility of an end to the Cold War. Individual contacts warmed relations, even if the British teams’ failings suggested the communists were ahead in sporting prowess. And so it was left to the national side to redress the balance.

By 1958, following the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising and the deepening Berlin Crisis, the thaw was over. That year England took on the USSR four times. Holiday company Morlands even offered supporters “a special cruise with five days in the USSR to see the international football match in Moscow”.

Draws in that friendly, and the group stages of the World Cup in Sweden were compounded when the Soviets won a play-off to send England out. Cold War sporting parity was restored, however, when the English won an autumn friendly 5-0 – described by the Daily Express as being “hammered and sickled”, with suggestions that Russian players would now be forced to work in salt mines. As the Cold War re-froze the conflict trickled into the sports reports.

While football became a proxy for the Cold War in the 1950s it also allowed sports fans to learn about the enigmatic country behind the iron curtain. As Britain’s global position is once more changing, and Russia is portrayed as posing a direct threat, more understanding between the respective countries might lead politicians to question how to approach international diplomacy as people from different cultures mix.

Nick Barnett is Lecturer in Twentieth Century European History at Swansea University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

4 replies on “Football’s cultural side helped Britain wage the last Cold War”

  1. Dawkins: “Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it”.

    Are we talking about the heaven Richard Dawkins has made a career out of denying? He could hardly make a statement more emphatically promoting eugenics.

  2. Eugenics is neither science not pseudoscience. It’s an art, like medicine and animal husbandry. It’s a good idea to borrow from a tradition of one of those arts– the
    Hippocratic Oath. Specifically, do no harm.

    Anyone who’s played the matchmaking game, or sought out the most attractive person at a dance, or simply “married up”, has engaged in the eugenics arts. In harmless ways. As has the generous donor who grants scholarships and stipends so students can start families earlier. And the government that cuts tax breaks for families. Or sets standards for marriage.

    But this is organic eugenics.

    Lesbians buying semen from a catalogue– which, unlike that of bulls, is not attached to a sire’s name– are practising inorganic, bureaucratic, commercial eugenics.

    Forcible sterilization and the like aren’t eugenics at all, but a counter-dysgenics. This is where the atrocities take place. It’s similar to corporations which were quite honest during their rise throw ethics out the window on the trip back down.

    By the way, Dawkins supplied his own answer in the original “tweet”. He mentioned morals, politics, and such. Well, as a reductionist, he would see these as just as much a result of biology as hair or eye colour, or reason or speech. A human trait that distinguishes us from other species.

  3. I want to question Dawkins’s surety that it “would work”. Dawkins is an atheist who mistakenly considers humans to be just another animal. ‘It’ probably would work on the animal type, physical characteristics and traits that humans share with animals but the complete human who is essentially a spiritual being clothed with a temporal, animal body, is a different kettle of fish (so to speak). The most perfect physical body can encompass a range of spiritual traits – from good right up to the most disorderly and evil. The only way the spiritual traits can be changed is by the individual themselves (so they have to be born first). If we want to improve the quality of human beings, physical change from without, is only a small part of the overall picture, regeneration (the improvement of character), the positive, personal, spiritual change from within is the essential or necessary change.

  4. I was at the annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society at Amherst College in Amherst, Massachusetts in 2000. Dawkins was there and gave a eulogy for W.D. Hamilton who discovered the math for inclusive fitness. Pinker was there, Rushton was there, but the big draw for me was the evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Judaism.

    Eugenics is clearly practiced by the patriarchs in the book of Genesis, but knowledge of that is censored in academia.

    In Charles Murray’s recent book ‘Human Diversity’ (2020) under the heading:

    WHY THERE IS SO LITTLE ABOUT EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IN HUMAN DIVERSITY –

    Murray writes: “evolutionary psychology is at the heart of explanations for the differences that distinguish men from women and human populations from each other. Ordinarily it would be a central part of my narrative. But the orthodoxy has been depressingly successful in demonizing evolutionary psychology as just-so stories. I decided that incorporating its insights would make it too easy for critics to attack the explanation and ignore the empirical reality.”

    HBES 2000 was over 20 years ago! The media has stifled evolutionary psychology so effectively Murray won’t discuss the field in his book for fear he will be attacked and his message obscured, but he provides sources if you want to learn more about evolutionary psychology.

    Since Kevin MacDonald’s “roasting” in 2000 evolutionary psychology and eugenics have been heavily censored but eugenics has been practiced since the domestication of animals and the presence of eugenics in Genesis was cited by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species.

    Here’s a link to my journal entry of HBES 2000s symposium on religion and evolutionary psychology:
    https://www.academia.edu/7921411/The_Annual_Meeting_of_the_Human_Behavior_and_Evolution_Society_HBES_2000_at_Amherst_College_in_Massachusetts

    Here’s a snip of what Charles Darwin was pointing out.
    [snip]
    “In Chapter 1 of The Origin of Species, titled “Variation under Domestication” under the heading “Principles of Selection Anciently Followed and Their Effects,” Darwin makes the following remark: “From passages in Genesis, it is clear that the colour of domestic animals was at that early period attended to.”
    Darwin does not give chapter and verse for the passages in Genesis he mentions, but once the great naturalist and lapsed seminarian brought them to my attention, I had to find them. He had specifically written that the principles of selection were anciently followed in Genesis. I was amazed to find those principles applied throughout the story of Jacob and Esau beginning in Genesis 25. The story of Jacob and Esau was the next knot in a strand of the Darwinian thread spun by Adam and Eve.”
    [end snip]

    The full essay discussing eugenics in Genesis is here:
    https://www.academia.edu/3257519/The_Book_of_Genesis_from_a_Darwinian_Perspective

Comments are closed.