From exclusionist to eliminationist anti-semitism in german turnen and sport or how goldhagen was the german sport system

pp. 40-53

>>> PDF <<<

Arnd Krüger


The Goldhagen book[i] has caused a long discussion about the reasons for the holocaust. In the following, I will not go into the controversy about the book or the person, nor will I discuss any detail of the Goldhagen-Finkelstein argument[ii], but I will look at one aspect of the Goldhagen thesis.[iii] He assumed that there is a direct way from exclusionist to eliminationist anti-Semitism in Germany, so that you can explain the brutal anti-Semitism in Germany after 1933 by the actions before that time. Of course, theoretically anything that took place before 1933 can have an effect on the time afterwards. As with all discourse theory, one of the main questions here seems to be whether one can estimate the importance of a certain discourse at a given time.[iv] What does it mean if the exclusion of Jews from an organization at a given time is proposed - or the exclusion of non-Jews from a Jewish club[v], or the exclusion of poor people from a rich peoples’ club?[vi] The potentiality of a discourse is not enough, there have to be actions as well.

How many anti-Semitic actions and discussions have to take place to justify calling a given society anti-Semitic - or racist for that matter? Why did the German government organize the mass murder of Jews as a result of this eliminationist discourse, while the United States - which had a similar discourse - did neither kill systematically Jews nor Negroes (but the Native Americans two generations earlier)?[vii] Is the American racist discourse, e.g., in conjunction with the Ku Klux Klan, a similar problem as the one in Germany prior to 1933 - or what are the distinctive features about the anti-Semitism in Germany?[viii]

The same question could, of course, also be raised about other societies and adjacent questions: The eugenic discourse after the turn of the 19th to the 20th centuries was quite similar in many Western countries. Voluntary sterilization was encouraged for the feeble minded in Britain, Germany and the United States.[ix] Some American states legally permitted it long before Germany. Why did this change to legal forceful sterilization and later to murder under the euphemism of "mercy killing" in Germany and not in the other countries?[x]

I assume that one can come a little closer to an answer of this question if one looks at the grass root sentiment of the population and its actions, particularly in a ritual context[xi] and not just the published opinion. I base my argument here on hegemonial theory[xii] as the Nazis tried to gain not just the power but also the hegemony by creating a "culture of consent" - just as the fascists had done in Italy.[xiii] For this, the physical education, Turnen, and sport movement is very helpful as one gets direct access to many ordinary people in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, while for the period before this seems to be somewhat difficult.[xiv] In the following I will look, therefore, at the anti-Semitism in these organizations in Germany, assuming that this way it becomes possible to judge partially the impact of the anti-Semitic discourse.

The other part of the problem seems to be in the actions of the government. Even if the discourse is there to do physically harm to a segment of the population, this does not automatically mean that this discourse is taken up by the government and transferred into concerted action. To eliminate somebody from your sport club for racial reasons - or not to let that person enter in the first place - does not automatically mean that your government will have that person killed in the future - and you will look the other way.

What then is the special German condition in the relationship between the government and the governed that helps to explain the action of the Nazi government? I presuppose that this may also become possible to judge in the physical education, Turnen and sport system, as here you deal with the direct approach to the human body.[xv] Following Foucault, I assume that the government action towards everything that has to do with the human body reflects on other actions towards the body.[xvi]

The Jewish Question in German Turnen

In the eighteenth century the "Jewish question" started to be discussed as Enlightenment brought the discussion whether Jews should have the same rights as gentiles. The condition for Jews prior to 1870 was quite distinct in the three hundred separate German states.[xvii] The First German Empire of 1871 brought a major change, as now the emancipation of the Jews became a nationwide fact. "Anti-Semitism" as a term appeared for the first time in 1879 and rapidly spread from there. It should be kept in mind, however, that a separation and exclusion from most public life was the reality in all of Europe prior to the Enlightenment and the way anti-Semitism and exclusion was handled in Germany was not particularly different.[xviii]

The German way of physical education and sport was drastically changed by Friedrich Ludwig Jahn (1778 - 1852). While in the eighteenth century, there was a wide difference between the exercises of the nobility still practicing the seven knightly arts at their academies, and the play and games performed by children and youth and at special festivities by all of the population, Jahn's call to form and train a guerrilla in a citizens' uprising against Napoleonic rule made for a widespread raise in the activity level of the population. The exercises of GutsMuths and Vieth who had just systematized the sports and games mainly for the schools were employed for Jahn's "Turnen". Jahn's ideas were nationalistic, as he assumed that only a united Germany would have a chance to rise against France and would have the possibility to hold its own in the European concert of nations. Jahn, the "Turnvater", is also at the beginning of German ethnology ("Volkskunde") with his other major work - which is not openly anti-Semitic either. Although Jahn was later on utilized to indicate that German Turnen has been anti-Semitic from the beginning[xix], the late Hartmut Becker has shown convincingly that he was not.[xx] When he wrote against Heinrich Heine or Ludwig Bamberger he reacted to their mockery of the German Turnen and their republican spirit -- and not to their Jewishness.

The German Turner organizations had members "of German origin and Israelite faith" in many prominent positions throughout all of its development. When they were criticized it was not because of their faith or ethnic origin, but because of their political or Turner opinions - just like anybody else. Eller, a Jewish lawyer from Mannheim, opposed the Turner symbol, the cross with its "Frisch-Fromm-Froh (later Fröhlich)-Frei" as it was a Christian symbol and as "fromm" (= pious) was an outmoded word which he, as a liberal Jew, could not agree with. This was widely disputed, but he also received a lot of support from other liberals from the cities of the Protestant north of Germany who agreed with him not because of his faith, but because they also objected to the notion of piousness. But the Catholic south and the small towns won and so the symbol was introduced.[xxi]

Anti-Semitism in the Turner organizations (1886 - 1901)

In 1860 the Deutsche Turnerschaft (DT) was finally formed as the sport’s governing body, after several abortive attempts in the 1840s. The DT combined every Turner of German descend no matter where they lived. The North American Turners were part of the section "Ausland" (foreign countries)[xxii], just as much as the Austrian Turners were part of the section number 15. The German Empire of 1871 was, however, a Prussian creation and excluded Austria (which had been part of the old German Empire) which was the center of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The borders of the DT and the borders of the new nation states were therefore no longer congruent as the Turners included Austria and Bohemia as part of their larger German nation.[xxiii] The question of "nationality" was ardently discussed in the Austro-Hungarian empire which contained, Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Slovenian, Serbs, Croatians, Bosniacs, Italians, Albanians, Rumanians, Macedonians, Turks, Jews, Gypsies and many more. Having the old border of East and West Rome and many national borders that had been equally disputed for a long time running through the land, there also was a lot old hatred -- which one could still see in the recent Balkan War.

The anti-Semitic Oberturnwart (responsible for the practical side of Turnen) of the large First Wiener Turnverein of 1861 Franz XaverKiessling (1859 - 1940) made a bid to exclude Jewish members from his club in 1886. At the annual assembly of his club in April 1887 he succeeded in having a proposed "Arierparagraph" ratified.[xxiv] The new statutory article stipulated that "club members may only be Germans (of Aryan descent) whose acceptance is confirmed by the Gymnastic Council". The acceptance of the Gymnastic Council was the normal procedure of the time, the Aryan paragraph was not. This was the time when Simon Schoenerer was running an anti-Semitic campaign in Austria, a grouping that eventually became very influential and can be seen as one of the main sources of Nazism in Germany.

The DT leadership was worried about the situation, as it had always defined "German" in cultural terms. Whoever could speak and sing German was accepted in the club. For the German clubs abroad in the United States and Brazil, e.g., the language was the main sign of distinction.[xxv] When German stopped to be spoken, the ties with Germany were severed. At the 9th German annual Turner meeting in Coburg (August 1887) Kiessling was repeatedly hindered from speaking and shouted down by the delegates. DT's general secretary Goetz[xxvi] published a biting article against Kiessling "So far and no further!" and by this he made the fronts even harder and eventually caused the Lower Austrians District (to which 1st Wiener TV of 1861 belonged) to include the Aryan paragraph in its constitution. The Central Commission of the DT immediately excluded the 12 anti-Semitic Turner clubs involved. Although the Central Commission was probably not really entitled to exclude then (but only to suspend them pending a hearing at the tenth German Annual Turner meeting) it did so by applying the rule that Turner clubs should be politically neutral. This rule had been introduced in 1860 after the experience of two bans of Turnen of 1819 and 1849 because of the involvement in political movements.

In October 1889 the DeutscherTurnerbund (DTB) was set up with Vienna as center but the same territorial extension as the DT. Their only difference was that the DTB had an Aryan paragraph and the DT had not.  To keep the anti-Semitic Turners inside the DT, the DT-leadership had permitted already in 1887 each club to have an Aryan paragraph in its statutes, but it strongly resisted that a district or even a Gau(several districts were forming a “Gau”, several “Gau” a “Turnkreis”) should have such a paragraph in its. This was a result of the rule that all Turner clubs in a certain area should be members of only one organization, and only a single Turner association should be available in any area, to avoid competition between rival Turner associations.

Eventually, a majority of the whole Austrian district of the DT (by 120: 15 votes) came up with an Aryan paragraph in 1901. Three years later the DT safeguarded the interest of the fourty clubs that did not want to exclude their Jewish members. It therefore set up a parallel district in Austria, so that from 1904 onward there were two parallel Turner organizations in all of Austria, as the DTB voted 97: 34 to quit the DT. By the same token, the DTB expanded then into all of Germany and set up regional organizations there, too.[xxvii]

In our Goldhagen context we should keep in mind that the strongest German Turner organization thoroughly discussed the question of the exclusion of Jews. Organizations often tend to make pragmatic decisions more for the benefit of the maintenance of the organization than on moral grounds. A large majority of the DT was, however, willing to keep its "handful" of Jewish members, even it was losing about 15 percent of its membership over the question of an Aryan paragraph. In the case of the Turners at the turn of the century we can therefore see, that an exclusionist discourse was present, but the forces of liberalism, humanity and sanity were by far dominating.

The Weimar Years

The Weimar years gave a mixed picture. On the one hand the anti-Semitic sentiment in the population rose. A good example is the discussion about the Jewish foot after World War I which showed that particularly in the field of physical culture differences between Jews and gentiles were on the agenda.[xxviii] In this case it was postulated that more Jews than their proportion in the population avoided serving in World War I and received a diagnosis from a fellow Jewish doctor that they had flat feet and could therefore not be drafted. It was shown, however, that their percentage in the military was as big as that of any other group and that the assumption of the Jewish foot had been nothing but a form of anti-Semitism. The same can be seen with the struggle between the DT and the DTB. The anti-Semitic DTB was such a small minority in Germany of less than one percent of the clubs in 1931.[xxix] But in both cases the discourse was there.

A typical case of Nazism can be seen in the Geisow "affair" in 1930. Hans Geisow, a convinced Nazi and member of the board of the German Swimming Federation (DSV), made an attempt to convince the delegates of the national assembly to stop international competitions and go national.[xxx] In his motion to leave the sports federation with international contact (DRA) he did not allude to its "half-Jewish" president (Theodor Lewald) and did not ask to join the DTB but the DT. So, inspite of his Fascism which also becomes obvious in his books on the spirit of the athlete, he is not an open anti-Semite. The assembly did not follow him in his motion, did not reelect him for the board,  and he could only maintain a leadership position in the regional association of Thuringia - a state that had as of the same year the first right wing coalition government including the Nazis, too.

The German sports teachers association elected in free and secret ballot a fascist as their president in 1925. Carl Krümmel, Ph.D., was, however, not (yet) a member of the Nazi Party and a prolific author with international connections having studied in London with the Nobel Prize winner Hill. As head of sports of the military academy in Wünsdorf (near Berlin) he could not be politically active – just as any other member of the military.[xxxi] After 1933, he became, however, the leading administrator of all German school and university sport and in this function he was responsible for the militarization of the physical education system.[xxxii]Krümmel, who had written already his Ph.D. thesis on anthropometric selection, was concerned with physical traits and their correlation if not causal relationship to performance, thus with one of the eugenic bases of Nazism.  But as a former German 5,000 meter champion he was concerned with the selection of athletes and soldiers (later also physical education teachers and instructors) on the basis of fitness and performance, race and constitutional norm. But he was not concerned with the superiority of any given race and claimed that "the differences within a given race are much bigger than between races" on the basis of the different body types.[xxxiii] His attitude is also shown after 1933 by the fact that he kept such people as Bernhard Zimmermann on his staff for the training and selection of physical educators after 1933 until 1937. Zimmermann was a tough nationalist military and adventure sport trainer, but not a Nazi. In fact he was married to a Jewish wife, refused to divorce her, and therefore lost his job a week before the legal deadline.[xxxiv] For the elitist Krümmel it was quality that counted and not race.

It can be seen that before 1933 the eliminationist discourse is present, but it is in a minority position in Germany.[xxxv] The proportion is somewhat larger in Austria where more nationalities and races clash.[xxxvi] The eliminationist discourse is not sufficiently strong to forge the Jewish sportsmen and women together. There were three separate Jewish national sports organizations in Germany: the Zionist Maccabi, the sports sections of the German national Schild(the organization of the German front fighters of World War I of Jewish faith), the politically neutral Vintus sports organization. Inspite of the possibility to find a Jewish club of one's preference, there were more Jewish athletes in the regular German bourgeois or workers' Turner and sports clubs than in the Jewish organizations. And in the clubs they were not separated from the rest of the athletes either.[xxxvii] A good example is the second string all Jewish sprint relay of the best German track and field clubs of SC Charlottenburg Berlin (SCC). The first relay of the SCC was at some time world record holder and so it was extremely difficult to make first team. The second team, nicknamed the "prophets' relay", because all of the sprinters were Jewish, was however, not separated. On various occasions some of their runners were included in the first string team, as the separation was not done on the basis of race but on speed.[xxxviii]

The Nazi Era

When the Nazis came to power the students of the world famous Berlin Sports College - of which Carl Diem was vice rector - tore up their running track - one of the fastest cinder tracks in Germany - and planted oak trees on it. They had assumed that the "terror of the stop watch" had an end now, that they would get a return to Jahn and the ideals of the DTB. The direct opposite was the case: Germany did have many more international dual meets than in the years before, the pressure to perform internationally rose. The comparison with the world standard became the rule rather than the exception. It was quite uncertain for what the Nazis actually stood in many fields - including the struggle of the systems of physical education, Turnen, and sport[xxxix], but with their ideological fixation on the purity and superiority of the Aryan, i.e. Nordic, race, they intended to breed and train absolutely healthy and fit men and women.[xl]

Inspite of all the resentment of Nazism prior to 1933, the Turner and sport movement turned voluntarily Nazi in early 1933 long before it had to.[xli] Why did Hitler find so many "willing executioners" in the Turner and sport movement, i.e. among ordinary people? "Without Hitler's moral authority" so wrote Goldhagen to answer his critics, "the great majority of Germans never would have considered genocide against the Jews" nor excluding them from their organizations.[xlii]

In the Turner and sport movement you can see a long tradition of doing what was asked from them by the state. In fact, the Turner and sport movement, using mainly public facilities for their exercises without paying a fee, depended for their sport on the good will of the local community. It had therefore the tradition to elect as their president a person that went along well with the respective city government. The same can be seen on a national basis prior to 1933 and after 1933. This open opportunism did not change when the Nazi era was over, but after 1945 the same clubs elected an "anti-fascist" to make sure than they would continue getting sports grounds free of charge by good personal contacts with the local authorities.

After 1949 when the occupational forces where no longer responsible and you had a revival of the "old" Germany in the West, in many cases the "old" comrades of the Nazi era were reelected - assuming now they that had much experience and were most efficient in negotiating with the city.[xliii] In East Germany (then GDR) communists were elected or imposed according to the same principle. The representative better be of the same Party as the members of the City Council to assure a constant flow of cash and free facilities. The same tradition has been visible in the sports movement as a whole from 1919 onward. With the former Deputy Minister of the Interior Theodor Lewald as President of the bourgeois sports organization, it was obvious that every time the government had a problem, Lewald and the sports movement volunteered to solve it better and cheaper than anybody else, be it low fitness of the work force, a reduced seize of the military due to the Treaty of Versailles positive, or positive national representation on the world’s stage.[xliv]

The Nazis also included the Fuhrer-principle, i.e. a club president was no longer elected but appointed from above. The so appointed club Fuhrer then chose and appointed his board. What sounds very authoritarian as elections were formerly abolished, however, was like this only in theory and in the rare case of conflicts. In reality club traditions persisted, the president was elected and the above authority was happy to appoint as Fuhrer who had thus been elected – as long as that person went along the Nazi way. The Nazis wanted people to do sports, as this seemed to be the best preparation for the War to come. A change in leadership inside the sports movement was necessary where the old leadership was identified with any of the leftist parties. But in terms of the actual benefit of sports not much needed to be changed. Many aspects of the sport movement were sufficiently favorable to the authoritarian and fascist structure of the sports movement.[xlv]

This also explains why the Turner and sports organizations raced to get a Nazi as  leader and kicked out their Jewish members - long before it was asked and often more thoroughly than it was asked at all. Helene Mayer, the Offenbach fencer who had won an Olympic gold in 1928, placed fifth in the 1932 Olympics was excluded from her club in spring of 1933. In 1935 she was put on the German Olympic team and eventually finished in the silver medal position in 1936. According to the Nuremberg racial Laws of August 1935 she was considered a "half-Jew", her father being Jewish, and her mother gentile. That meant that she could be a member of a sports club, if she did not marry a Jew, but could not, e.g., become a club official. Why then was she excluded as early just as so many other athletes and officials? Because "Judenfrei" (no Jewish members) was considered a quality a club wanted to attach itself to get better conditions for its work from the new state.[xlvi]

What can be seen on the small scale of the club, took also place on the large scale of national sports governing bodies, in spite of the fact that there was a certain leeway. When the Nazis faced distinct opposition they often refrained from concrete action: Prior to 1933 there were, e.g.,  as many as twelve cycling federations which all called themselves "national". The Nazis forcefully combined them into one and appointed the president of one as new president of the new single national federation. The former president of one of the other federations insisted that his organization was better, that he was the even better Nazi, and that he should be appointed president of all. The Nazis withdrew their protégé and appointed the director of the main indoor cycling track as new president, thus avoiding to get dragged into the quarrel.[xlvii] The Nazis closed down, e.g., all nudist camps in spring 1933 as nudism was against "good German taste". As communist clubs had been dissolved already, the question of Jewish membership pertained. The nudists kicked out their Jewish members (and others that were circumcised), elected a Nazi member of Parliament their president, who made the nudists a "sport" organization (in the same section with hiking, canoeing and other outdoor sports), brought them into the national coordinated sport federation so that the camps could reopen in fall 1933 in time for the indoor season.[xlviii] The clubs that had been openly Socialist stayed closed but their members were accepted in other nudist camps according to the rules that applied to sports clubs.[xlix] Thus only in Germany (and later Austria) nudism became a “sport”, as the safeguard of the organization was far more important to the membership than their tradition and main emphasis. After 1945 nudism stayed a “sport” as it had encountered the same benefits as any other sports federation and enjoyed certain privileged not known outside the sports movement before.

IOC-member Theodor Lewald (for a long time member of its executive board) was forced out by the annual assembly as president of the sports’ governing body.[l] He was, however, also the president of the National Olympic Committee and had formed the organizing committee for the Berlin Olympics as a separate non-profit organization one week before the Nazi take-over. As an experienced organizational and constitutional expert he knew that this way it was difficult to be ousted from the Olympics. Although there was a lot of public pressure against the "Jew" Lewald and the "white Jew" Carl Diem both maintained their Olympic positions and eventually helped the Nazis to make the Olympic Games of 1936 the biggest propaganda stunt for a fascist regime possible.[li] But by their actions it becomes obvious that it was possible to resist the eliminationist pressure in the organization, but that most did not use the possibilities they had but gave in to what they thought were the desires of the Nazis.

This year there will be celebrations for the 75th anniversary of the Berlin Olympics, the s. c. Nazi Olympics. At the 50th anniversary HajoBernett and Jean-Marie Brohm ardently discussed the significance: For Bernett the Nazis perverted the beautiful Games to make it a big propaganda show. Brohm maintained that elite sport, the cult of the perfect body of the Olympic victor, is sufficiently fascist in itself that only a fascist government could celebrate it in such a splendid way, perfect for the time.[lii] We should not underestimate, however, the limited view we may have of such an event.[liii]


At the example of the Turner and sport movement in Germany it can be seen that the eliminationist discourse was there, that it was not very successful prior to 1933, but that it was immediately acted upon after 1933 much earlier than the Turner and sport movement had to and in a way that went way beyond what the clubs were forced to do years later. In the scope of this paper it is impossible to answer why the ordinary people in ordinary clubs acted that way. From the chains of argument there seemed to have been an almost metaphysical belief in the power of the state and its Führer. The role of the state is obviously stronger in Germany than in many of its neighboring states, biologistic thinking is stronger developed[liv] (and influenced more by GregorMendel than elsewhere[lv]), the reception of Darwinism was different in Germany where the survival of the fittest race rather than the fittest individual as in England or the US was believed in, [lvi] the iussanguinis was not only the law of the land but also accepted as natural law - so that a biological argument overriding the Christian norms was - and still is - widely accepted.[lvii] On the whole, it can be seen that the Goldhagen argument about the logical chain from eliminationist thinking and acting prior to 1933 and after 1933 is not that easy and that obviously as many more conditions in Germany have to be taken into consideration to explain the willingness of Hitler's executioners. Inside the sports movement they changed from inclusion to exclusion.

Carl Diem claimed that in most clubs of the Nazi era nothing much changed in the physical education and sport context. This of course short sighted, as a lot of things changed for the workers’ sports people and the Jewish sportsmen and women, for gypsies, and many people in the occupied lands. But the actual performance of a sport did not change.[lviii]

After World War II the sports clubs were among the most active parts of society to work – formally and informally - for the integration of refugees and displaced persons. Today the German sports movement is among the most active parts of society to work for the inclusion of the new Germans with a migration background. The exclusionist argument is gone.[lix]


[i] D. J. Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners (New York, 1997).

[ii] N. Finkelstein, "GoldhageneinQuellentrickser?", in: Der Spiegel No. 34, Aug. 18, 1997.

[iii] For an earlier version of this paper see: A. Krüger: How "Goldhagen" was the German System of Physical Education, Turnen, and Sport, in: A. Krüger, A. Teja& E. Trangbaek (eds.). Europäische Perspektiven zur Geschichte von Sport, Kultur und Politik. (Berlin: Tischler, 2001), 82 – 92. 

[iv] R. Harré& G. Gillett, The Discursive Mind (London, 1994); D. Chaney, The Cultural Turn (London, 1994); C. C. Aronsfeld, The Text of the Holocaust. The Nazis' Extermination Propaganda from 1919 - 1945 (Marblehead, MA, 1985); S. Hall, "The Work of Representation", in: Id. (ed.), Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (London, 1997), pp. 13 - 74.

[v] A. Krüger& A. Sanders, "Jewish Sports in the Netherlands and the Problems of Selective Memory", in: Journal of Sport History 26 (1999), 2, 271 – 86.

[vi] A. Krüger, "The German way of worker sports", in: A. Krüger& J. Riordan (eds.), The Storyof  Worker Sport (Champaign, Ill., 1996 ), pp. 1 - 25.

[vii] I am not trying to deemphasize the German guilt by putting it into comparison with other genocides, but I am concerned with the validity of the Goldhagen argument, fully acknowledging that what Germany did after 1933 was uniquely inhumane, see, e.g., K. A. Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz. The Nazi Policy Towards German Jews (Urbana, IL, 1970); G. Hirschfeld (ed), The Policies of Genocide. Jews and Soviet Prisoners of War in Nazi Germany (London, 1986); A. Meyer, Why did the Heavens not Darken? The 'Final Solution' in History (New York, 1988); R. Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der Juden 1933 - 1945(Frankfurt/M, 1992); P. Burrin, Hitler and the Jews. The Genesis of the Holocaust (London, 1994).

[viii] S. Kühl, The Nazi Connection. Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (New York, 1994).

[ix] J. Milfull (ed.), Why Germany? National-Socialist Anti-Semitism and the European Context (Providence, 1993).

[x] K. Nowak, "Widerstand, Zustimmung, Hinnahme. Das Verhalten der Bevölkerungzur 'Euthanasie'", in: N. Frei (ed), Medizin und Gesundheitspolitik in der NS-Zeit(Munich, 1991), pp. 235 - 51.

[xi] A. Krüger, "The Ritual in Modern Sport: A Sociobiological Approach", in J. M. Carter and A. Krüger (eds), Ritual and Record (Westport, Conn., 1990), pp. 135 - 52.

[xii] T.J. Jackson Lears, "The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities", in: American Historical Review90 (1985), 3, 567 - 93; for a debate see Journal of American History 75 (1988), 1, pp. 115 - 57.

[xiii] V. de Grazia, The Culture of Consent. Mass Organization of Leisure in Fascist Italy (Cambridge, 1981);  A. Krüger, " Fasci e crociuncinate, in: Lancillotto e Nausica. Critica e storiadellosport 8 (1991), 1/2, pp. 88  - 101.

[xiv] A. Krüger, "Cui bono? ZurWirkung des Sportjournalismus", in: A. Krüger& S. Scharenberg (eds),Wie die Medien den Sportaufbereiten - AusgewählteAspekte der Sportpublizistik (Berlin, 1993), pp. 24 - 65.

[xv] For a new bibliography of Nazi sports, see L. Peiffer. Sport imNationalsozialismus: Zumaktuellen Stand der sporthistorischenForschung. EinekommentierteBibliographie. (Göttingen: Die Werkstatt, 2009)

[xvi] B. S. Turner, The Body and Society(London, 1996); C. Shilling, The Body and Social Theory (London, 1993); Hall, "The Work of Representation", p. 51; M. Foucault, The History of Sexuality (New York, 1986).

[xvii] D. Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry. 1780 - 1840(Oxford, 1987); T. Rürup, Emanzipation und Antisemitismus(Göttingen, 1975); A. D. Low, Jews in the Eyes of the Germans. From the Enlightenment  to Imperial Germany (Philadelphia, 1979).

[xviii] For the Jewish side see D. L. Gilman, Jewish Self-Hatred. Anti-Semitism and the Hiddeen Language of the Jews (Baltimore, 1986).

[xix] H. Ueberhorst, ZurückzuJahn.. Gab eskeinbesseresVorwärts?(Bochum, 1969).

[xx] H. Becker, "The Jews and Anti-Semitsm in the German Gymnastics Movement, 1810 - 1933", in: U. Simri (ed), Physical Education and Sport in the Jewish History and Culture (Netanya, 1977), pp. 70 - 78; H. Becker, Antisemitismus in der DeutschenTurnerschaft (St. Augustin, 1980).

[xxi] E. Neuendorff, Geschichte der neuerendeutschenLeibesübungvomBeginn des 18. Jahrhundertsbis in die Gegenwart vol. 3 (Dresden, 1932), pp. 405ff.

[xxii] H. Ueberhorst, Tuner untermSternenbanner(Munich, 1978).

[xxiii] D. Richter, Nation als Form(Opladen, 1996); A. Krüger, "The German Sonderwegin Turnen and Sport, 1870 - 1914. What’s so German about the Germans?" In: Committee for the Commemoration of Prof. Dr. J. Narita (ed): International Perspectives and Results of Historical Research on Physical Education and Sport (Tokyo, 1996), pp. 585 - 607. For a comparative view: J. MacClancy (ed), Sport, Identity asnd Ethnicity(Oxford, 1996).

[xxiv] F. X. Kiessling, Turnerisches und völkischesGeschehenimWandel der Zeiten(Vienna, 1940).

[xxv] L. Wieser, DeutschesTurnen in Brasilien. Deutsche Auswanderung und die Entwicklung des deutsch-brasilianischenTurnwesensbiszumJahre 1917 (London, 1990).

[xxvi] H. Ueberhorst, "Ferdinand Goetz und Edmund Neuendorff - WirkungsgeschichtezweierTurnführer", in: W. Buss & A. Krüger (eds): Sportgeschichte: Traditionspflege und Wertewandel. Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. W. Henze (Duderstadt, 1985), pp. 147 - 60.

[xxvii] For the full story see Becker, Antisemitismus in der DeutschenTurnerschaft.

[xxviii] S. Gilman, "The Jewish Foot. A Foot-Note to the Jewish Body", in: Id., The Jew's Body (London, 1991), pp. 38 - 59.

[xxix] 120 vs. 12,963 clubs with 5360 vs. 1,617,849 members, see Jahrbuch der Turnkunst(Dresden, 1932), pp. 137 and 199.

[xxx] H.G. John, "Die Affaire Geissow und der Deutsche Schwimm-Verband - Auf demWege ins Dritte Reich?" In: G. Sitzer& D. Schmidt (eds), Sport zwischenEigenständigkeit und Fremdbestimmung. Festschrift fürHajoBernett (Schorndorf, 1986), pp. 154 - 70.

[xxxi] H. Ueberhorst, Carl Krümmel und die nationalsozialistischeLeibeserziehung(Berlin, 1976).

[xxxii] L. Peiffer, TurnunterrichtimDritten Reich. Erziehungfür den Krieg? (Cologne, 1987).

[xxxiii] C. Krümmel, "Eignungslehre", in: Id. (ed.), Athletik. EinHandbuch der lebenswichtigenLeibesübungen(Munich, 1930), pp. 84 - 123, quote from p. 107.

[xxxiv] A. Krüger& F. v. Lojewski, "AusgewählteAspekte des Wehrsports in Niedersachsen in der WeimarerZeit", in: H. Langenfeld& S. Nielsen (eds), BeiträgezurSportgeschichteNiedersachsens. Teil 2: WeimarerRepublik (Hoya, 1998), pp. 124 – 48; W. Henze (ed), B. Zimmermann - H. Nohl - K. Hahn. EinBeitragzurReformpädagogik (Duderstadt, 1991).

[xxxv] P. Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism 1870 - 1945 (Cambridge, 1993).

[xxxvi] B. F. Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution. A History of Austrian Anti-Semitism (Chapel Hill, NC,1992).

[xxxvii] A. Krüger, ""Wenn die Olympiadevorbei, schlagenwir die JudenzuBrei". Das Verhältnis der Judenzu den OlympischenSpielen von 1936", in: Menora 5. Jahrbuchfürdeutsch-jüdische Geschichte 1994 (Munich, 1994), pp.  331 – 48; Id., "'Once the Olympics are through, we'll beat up the Jew'. German Jewish Sport 1898 – 1938 and the Anti-Semitic Discourse," in: Journal of Sport History 26 (1999), 2, 353 – 75.

[xxxviii] Personal communication with Hermann Schlöske (from the "Aryan" relay and Yogi Mayer, from the Jewish side of the club), see F. Steinmetz, 75 Jahre Deutsche Leichtathletik-Meisterschaften (1898 - 1972) (Berlin, 1972), p. 60; P. Y. Mayer, JüdischeOlympiasieger. Sport – EinSprungbrettfürMinoritäten(Kassel, 2000).

[xxxix] A. Krüger, '“Heutegehörtuns Deutschland und morgen...'? Das Ringen um den Sinn der Gleichschaltungim Sport in der erstenJahreshälfte 1933", in: W. Buss & A. Krüger (eds), Sportgeschichte: Traditionspflege und Wertewandel. Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Henze (Duderstadt, 1985), pp. 175 - 96.

[xl] A. Krüger,  "Breeding, Rearing and Preparing the Aryan Body: Creating the Complete Superman the Nazi Way", in: International Journal History Sport 16 (1999), 2, 42 – 68.

[xli] H. Becker, "Die Arisierung der DeutschenTurnerschaftimJahre 1933", Stadion2 (1976), 1, pp. 121 - 39.

[xlii] Quoted by Finkelstein in Der Spiegel.

[xliii] A. Krüger, Sport und Politik, VomTurnvaterJahnzumStaatsamateur (Hannover, 1975), pp. 221ff.

[xliv] A. Krüger,, “Theodor Lewald und die Instrumentalisierung von Leibesübungen und Sport". R. Naul (ed.). Willibald-Gebhardt-Symposium 2011. (Aachen: Meyer & Meyer, 2011) (in Print).

[xlv] T. Tannsjo. „Is our Admiration for Sporting Heroes Fascistoid?“ W. J. Morgan (ed.). Ethics in Sports. (2nd ed., Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007) , 429-440.

[xlvi] A. Krüger, Die OlympischenSpiele 1936 und die Weltmeinung. IhreaußenpolitischeBedeutungunterbesondererBerücksichtigung der USA.  (Berlin, 1972).

[xlvii]Krüger, "Heutegehörtuns Deutschland...".

[xlviii] He happened to know the Reichssportführer v. Tschammer as both were MPs for the Nazis for the same town, other organizations within the Nazi ranks would have also been possible.

[xlix] A. Krüger, "There goes this art of manliness. Naturism and social hygiene in Germany", in: Journal of Sport History 18 (1991), 1, pp. 135 - 58; id., "Zwischen Sex und Zuchtwahl. Nudismus und Naturismus in Deutschland und Amerika", in: N. Finzsch& H. Wellenreuther (eds),  Liberalitas: Eine Festschrift für Erich Angermann (Stuttgart, 1992), pp. 343 - 65.

[l] A. Krüger, Dr. Theodor Lewald. Sportführer ins 3. Reich(Berlin, 1975); R. Pfeiffer & A. Krüger, "Theodor Lewald: EineKarriereimDienste des Vaterlandsoder die vergeblicheSuchenach der jüdischenIdentitäteines 'Halbjuden'", in:Menora. Jahrbuchfürdeutsch-jüdische Geschichte 1995 (Munich, 1995), pp. 233 - 65.

[li] For the full story of Diem’s opportunism see F. Becker. Den Sport gestalten. Carl Diems Leben (1882-1962): vol. 3: NS-Zeit. (Duisburg: UniversitätsverlagRhein-Ruhr, 2009).

[lii] J.-M. Brohm. 1936 Jeux Olympiques a Berlin (Paris: Versaille, 2008).

[liii] A. Krüger. “’What's the Difference between Propaganda for Tourism and for a Political Regime?’ Was the 1936 Olympics the first Postmodern Spectacle?” In: J. Bale & M. Krogh Christensen (eds.): Post-Olympism? Questioning Sport in the Twenty-first Century. (Oxford: Berg 2004), 33 – 50,

[liv] H.-G. Marten, Sozialbiologismus. BiologischeGrundpositionen der politischenIdeengeschichte (Frankfurt/M, 1983); R. W. Bell & N. J. Bell (eds), Sociobiology and the Social Sciences (Lubbock, TX, 1989).

[lv] A. Krüger, "A Horse Breeder's Perspective: Scientific Racism in Germany. 1870 - 1933, in: N. Finzsch& D. Schirmer (eds), Identity and Intolerance. Nationalism, Racism, and Xenophobia in Germany and the United States (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 371 – 96.

[lvi] R. Hofstadter, "Darwinism and Western Thought", in H. L. Plaine, Darwin, Marx and Wagner (Columbus, OH, 1962), pp. 53 - 5.

[lvii] N. Raethzel, "Germany: One Race, One Nation", Race & Class 32 (1990) 3, pp. 32 – 48.

[lviii] A. Krüger,  "‘Es gab imGrundekeineSportstunde, die, von Gestenabgesehen, andersverlaufenwärealsvor- und nachher.‘ Realität und Rezeption des nationalsozialistischen Sports“, in: M. V. Schönebeck (ed.): VomUmgang des FachesMusikpädagogikmit seiner Geschichte. (Essen: BlaueEule, 2001), 231 – 253.

[lix] D.H. Jütting (ed.).  Die lokal-globale Fußballkultur - wissenschaftlich beobachtet (Münster: Waxmann, 2004).