Masaryk University Brno

Faculty of Education

Department of English Language and Literature

The "Second ", the and Czechoslovak Participation

Bachelor Thesis

Supervisor: Written by:

Michael George, M. A. Tomáš Holík

350456

Brno 2013

I declare that I have worked on this thesis on my own, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography section.

25th November 2013, Brno ______

Tomáš Holík

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Mr. Michael George, M. A., for his help, constructive and inspiring advice and feedback, as well as his promptness and availability.

3

ANNOTATION:

This thesis deals with the topic that influenced the world’s modern history international situation and events. The text describes political relationships between the of America, the and their allies during the final period of the Cold War. It shows the influence of political power on the sportsmen participating in the most famous sport event, focusing on the Czechoslovak athletes.

ANOTACE:

Tato práce pojednává o tématu, které ovlivnilo světovou moderní historii, situaci a události na mezinárodním poli. Text popisuje politické vztahy mezi Spojenými státy americkými, Sovětským svazem a jejich spojenci v průběhu poslední fáze studené války. Ukazuje vliv politické moci na sportovce, účastnící se nejslavnějšího sportovního svátku, přičemž se zaměřuje především na československé atlety.

KEY WORDS:

Cold War, Olympic Games, International Olympic Committee, , United States of America, Soviet Union, history, athletes

KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA:

Studená válka, olympijské hry, Mezinárodní olympijský výbor, Československo, Spojené státy americké, Sovětský svaz, historie, sportovci

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 7

2 THE COLD WAR CHARACTERISTICS ...... 7

2.1 From 1945 Until the End of Korean War ...... 8

2.2 The Struggle Between Superpowers 1953-1979 ...... 10

3 THE SECOND COLD WAR – PERIOD OF TENSION RETURNS ...... 11

3.1 Soviet War in ...... 12

3.2 Reagan Doctrine ...... 12

4 THE INVOLVED INTO POLITICS ...... 13

4.1 1980 ...... 13

4.1.1 Moscow Assignment ...... 14

4.1.2 Protests and Boycott ...... 14

4.1.3 ...... 19

4.2 1984 ...... 20

4.2.1 The Election of Los Angeles ...... 20

4.2.2 The Boycott of Participants ...... 23

4.2.3 The Final Decision ...... 25

4.2.4 The ...... 28

5 OLYMPIC BOYCOTTS AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA ...... 28

5

5.1 Moscow 1980 ...... 29

5.1.1 Successes – Record Number of Medals ...... 29

5.2 Los Angeles 1984 ...... 30

5.2.1. The Proclamation of the Czechoslovak National Olympic Committee 1984 ...... 30

5.2.2 The Athletes and the Boycott ...... 33

6 THE POLICY AFTER GORBACHEV’S ASCENSION ...... 35

6.1 ...... 35

6.2 Glasnost and Perestroika ...... 36

6.3 Conferences Changing the World ...... 37

7 CONCLUSION ...... 39

8 LITERATURE AND SOURCES ...... 41

6

1 INTRODUCTION

The Cold War is a world’s modern history phenomena. Many people still remember the times of this conflict. No generation had the opportunity to see and live in this kind of war before – and hopefully, we will not have to go through any similar period again.

No war in mankind’s history ever existed without a direct clash between the two leading countries – until the times of the Cold War – even though there were many moments when the world found itself in anxiety and the tension between these two sides of the conflict lasted for more than 40 years.

The thesis deals with a period of time that affected millions of people all around the world. The impacts of the situation were enormous in many fields – the progress and competition in science, the heroes that fought against the Soviet/American enemies and villains and brought a cultural fight that changed the modern pop culture, a great sport rivalry – as there were no real battles, all these aspects (and many more) had its influence on a political sphere of power and international relationships.

Unfortunately, the strong disputes of the superpowers did not have its mutual effects on themselves only. The neutral organizations and worldwide events were involved involuntarily, the example of which is shown in this text - one of these organizations was the International Olympic Committee and “their” most important event which is known as a world-wide phenomena, the Olympic Games.

2 THE COLD WAR CHARACTERISTICS

When World War II ended, the world felt free. Hitler committed suicide in which meant the factual end of Nazi power supremacy in Europe; even though the fights in different parts of

7

Europe lasted for another few days. Most nations did not want to fight anymore. Nevertheless, the tendencies to control the world in other ways appeared. If Europe wanted to recover from the impacts of the war, the countries needed to build the destroyed factories again and plant enough crops to restore its economic self-sufficiency step by step. However, Europe was not able to do this just by itself – international help was needed. And this was the basis of the wish for influence of two largest countries (and later blocks) of the world, the Soviet Union in the east, and the United States of America representing the west, for an economic and – even more importantly – political struggle between them. This way of rivalry explains the name “The Cold War”, because there has never been a real armed conflict between the two superpowers during the 44 years between 1947 and 1991 – even though there were moments, when the danger of the World War III depended on pushing one button or making one very unwise decision.

2.1 From 1945 Until the End of Korean War

At the Conference, Joseph Stalin, the Communist Party General Secretary of the Soviet Union, the American President Harry Truman and the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who was replaced during the conference by Clement Attlee, discussed how to punish the defeated Germany. They also talked about the necessity to help Europe economically and also politically (“Postupimská konference.” Valka.cz). It meant a very important step to establish new borders of the European countries and, most importantly, the world peace again.

In October 1945, the United Nations Charter was ratified by five states – permanent members of the UN Security Council – , the Soviet Union, the United States of America, , and the United

8

Kingdom and a majority of the 45 other states – or more precisely 46 (with which signed later) – that drew up the Charter. In January 1946 both the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council of this important world institution met in Westminster, London, for the first time. (“History of the United Nations”. UN.org)

Harry Truman, the U. S. President took over after the death of his predecessor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on April 25th, 1945 (Dorazil 381), formulated a new U. S. foreign policy in 1947 while delivering a speech in the U. S. Congress. The so called “Truman Doctrine” meant providing both the military and economic help to any independent and free country in cases of any threat – the fear of the Soviet influence in Europe and the expansion of the communist ideology to the European countries was the main motivation to behave this way. In the name of the economic help presented in the Truman Doctrine, the United States of America offered the . George Marshall, the United States Secretary of State and the author of this plan, showed his programme of the economy renewal in Europe in a lecture on Harvard University on 5th June 1947 (Pacner 242). The plan was widely accepted in the West and Marshall was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for it in 1953 (“The Nobel Peace Prize 1953“. Nobelprize.org). However, Stalin hoped that Americans would lose their position in Europe and leave. Marshall Plan changed this, as the countries that would join it would be in an economic relationship with the USA. Stalin felt that his plans about the power in Europe could be endangered and commanded all the countries, where the Soviet troops fought against Nazis, not to join Marshall Plan or to withdraw their previous agreement with the American help (Pacner 243) – and this was the first step signifying the fact that Europe is going to be divided into two politically different parts.

The Soviets also caused the “” (1948-49), when they did not allow the pass the road vehicles, trains and ships with the

9 supplies going between west occupation zones and “western” parts of Berlin. (Shlaim 3-39)

April 4th, 1949 meant another step of escalated tension between the United States and the Soviet Union - in Washington, D. C. the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a pact of the USA, and Western Europe countries, was founded. NATO stood against the power of Soviet Union and its European allies and wanted to stop the militarism in Europe (“NATO History”. NATO.int).

In 1950, the U. S. President Truman reacted against the communist North Korean army crossing the 38th parallel in Korea. He started the direct activity of the U. S. forces in Korea; the North Koreans were supported by Chinese troops and also the Soviet Union in fact. This action lasted until 1953.

In 1953, another really important change in the international relationships came because Josef Stalin died in Kuncev near Moscow (Dorazil 488).

2.2 The Struggle Between Superpowers 1953-1979

After these “beginnings” of the Cold War, many more problems came.

In 1955, the Pact was signed by the Eastern Bloc countries as a counterweight of the starting cooperation of Western Europe (the present-day European Union) and NATO. The War was a historical event in which the North Vietnamese soldiers defended their communist future in a guerrilla war (first they fought against France followed by the war with the USA). It meant many lost American lives; finally, the U. S. troops were called off from Vietnam in 1975. The communists won here and unified the country after almost 30 years of combat.

10

In the beginning of the 60’s, the famous , which divided Berlin into two parts for almost 30 years, was built after the Second Berlin Crisis. This Crisis was caused by the fact that the Eastern Bloc wanted to have all the Berlin area under its supervision. The moment that was the most dangerous for the world during The Cold War, was the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The Soviets deployed their missiles on the coast of communist , which was a threat for the area of the United States; this crisis almost made both of the superpowers to launch their nuclear weapons, which might have caused the World War III – probably a very short, but devastating war for the mankind.

3 THE SECOND COLD WAR – PERIOD OF TENSION RETURNS

After this escalation of the conflicts between the two superpowers, both the United States and the Soviet Union were afraid of any armed conflict more than ever before – they realized that it could mean the end not only for the enemy, but also for their own country. For this reason, relatively calmer period of a politic of détente came (“Détente”. Macmillandictionary.com; meaning relaxed relationships). For instance, the SALT I and SALT II (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) agreements, decreasing the number of the newly produced nuclear weapons, were signed during the 70’s (1972 and 1979 - LaFeber 326). However, the U. S. President asked the U. S. Senate to delay its decision about SALT II due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (which is mentioned later in this thesis), even though Carter had signed the treaty with Soviet Union before (Webster 120).

Furthermore, some countries that were partly subordinate to the Soviet Union or the United States, and due to this fact were less powerful in the international relationships, were from the times of the

11 policy of détente not that much afraid to disobey the wishes of the superpowers anymore (Gaddis 212).

3.1 Soviet War in Afghanistan

In 1978, the Communist party achieved obtained power over Afghanistan in a revolution. Furthermore, the Soviets signed a “treaty of friendship, cooperation and help” (Dorazil 489) with the newly established Afghan government. Nevertheless, many Afghans did not agree with the pro-Soviets and therefore a civil war broke out. With the help of the treaty, Soviets sent a lot of arms to support the communists. Because of the fact that two factions fought against themselves in the communist party, Soviet troops had to play a much more important role in this war than they wanted to. The Soviets left the area of Afghanistan in 1989.

3.2 Reagan Doctrine

Ronald Reagan, a former film actor born in 1911 (Webster 121), was elected the 40th U. S. President in November 1980 (Dorazil 489). Webster mentions that Reagan was criticized for his home policy – he made heavy cuts in the aid for poor and old people and he also made economies in the “area” of the environment and national parks (123) and he was attempted on his life in 1981, very probably mainly due to these heavy cuts. Nevertheless, he made a full recovery (Webster 124). On the contrary, as Gaddis stated, Reagan promised to spend more money on the U. S. Army needs and to “confront the Soviets everywhere” (189) and announced that for him, the Soviet Union is an evil empire (197). Reagan was re-elected in 1984 and started the Strategic Defense Initiative (also called “Star Wars”) programme,

12 which meant the development of “a space based anti-missile shield” against a nuclear attack.

His negative attitude to communist ideology led to call it a “Reagan Doctrine”. As a part of this doctrine, he decided to support the governments of El Salvador or Honduras in the fight against the communist rebels and the anti-communist politicians in financially. The words that can be seen as a typical sign of this doctrine are: "My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: We win and they lose. What do you think of that?” (Allen, Hoover.org)

Reagan’s most important role in the world history is his talks between with Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991. This topic is developed in this work later.

4 THE SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES INVOLVED INTO POLITICS

The Second Cold War represents the time since starting the war in Afghanistan (1979) until 1985, and it is the main part of the thesis, as both the Summer Olympic Games in Moscow (1980) and in Los Angeles (1984) were realized during this period of history.

4.1 Moscow 1980

The background of problems about the 1980 Summer Olympic Games was in the war in Afghanistan. The United States and their President, Jimmy Carter, were upset by the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Consequently, Dorazil mentions that it was the main reason for the U. S. Olympic Committee to propose and agree that

13 their sportsmen were not allowed to participate at the Moscow Olympic Games 1980 (447).

4.1.1 Moscow Assignment

The Moscow Olympic Games were the first Olympics ever that were organized in the Eastern Bloc country, as only two cities had stood in the election. This low number of cities was caused by very high (and still raising) expenses for the Olympic Games (“Olympic.cz: Historie”. Olympic.cz).

The final decision of the place where the 1980 Summer Olympic Games would be organized was made on October 23, 1974 in Vienna, . The chairman of the International Olympic Committee, Lord Killanin (the President of this institution from 1972 to 1980; “The Organisation: Presidents”. Olympic.org), announced that Moscow had been chosen to be the place to organize the Games in one of the shortest speeches in the Olympic Games history (“Moskva zvítězila”. Rudé právo).

4.1.2 Protests and Boycott

Many countries were not satisfied with this decision and were trying to forestall the organizing during the preparation of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games. wanted to push the International Olympic Committee to cancel the decision to hold these Games in Moscow and in 1977 the U. S. Congress accused the Soviet Union (via a letter to the United States Olympic Committee) that they are planning not to allow the Israeli participants to come to these Olympic Games (Kršák 28-29).

14

The boycott was suggested by more sources and more people. A group of West-German students proposed the boycott if the Soviet Union would not allow the Radio Free Europe reporters to come to Moscow. The Sunday Times, a British newspaper, wrote a request on the British government to support the boycott (Kršák 28-29).

In the beginning of January 1980, the U. S. President Jimmy Carter delivered a speech in which he questioned the United States’ participation in Moscow (as a protest against the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan, as outlined before; Webster 120).

The United States’ northern neighbour, Canada, tried to support the U. S. suggestion not to travel to the Soviet Union. The aim of Canadian government was clear when its head, the Prime Minister Joe Clark, said that the alternative of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games might be held in Canada. The favourite city was because the 21st was held there in 1976. Moreover, the second possibility, mentioned by Howell, is that the Montreal Mayor Jean Drapeau was asked by the U. S. president Carter (de facto by the U. S. Consul in Montreal) to hold the Games in 1980 with the financial help of the United States, when it was sure that the Americans were not going to compete in Moscow (206). Nevertheless, the “Montreal option” was proclaimed clearly impossible by the team of organizers of the 1976 Games. The main reason for this rejection was a lack of resources and facilities – a majority of the apartments in the 1976 in Montreal had already had their tenants, so the competitors would have to live in hotels and in university dormitories – which would become a problem for the spectators. Besides, the stadiums had its schedules already during the time when the Olympics would take place (Webbe, Csmonitor.com).

However, the United States’ Olympic Committee was not sure about the Jimmy Carter’s reaction on the Soviet army action in

15

Afghanistan at first. Robert Kane, the leader of the U. S. Olympic Committee from 1977 to 1981 (“Robert J. Kane”. NYTimes.org), condemned the Carter’s “anti-Moscow” policy at first (“Svobodné rozhodování.” Rudé právo). This meant he had to visit the President Jimmy Carter and discuss the next steps of the U. S. Committee with him. Meanwhile waiting the Committee’s decision, Carter showed his opinion about the participation in the Moscow Games: If the Soviet troops were not leaving Afghanistan by February 20, he would not support travelling to Moscow. By this, Carter in fact pushed the members of the Committee to its final decision and on January 27, 1980 they supported the wish to change the place or to ignore the 1980 Summer Olympic Games – it meant supporting the boycott in fact (“Svobodné rozhodování.” Rudé právo), even though nothing was definitely sure. On the contrary, many American athletes did not agree with the decision as they did not wish to connect sports with the politics (“U. S. Olympic Committee...”. History.com).

The International Olympic Committee did not change anything and still proclaimed Moscow as the city of the 22nd Olympiad – even though during the Lake Placid in 1980 the United States tried to persuade also the IOC members to change the place of the upcoming Summer Games (Kolář, Dejinyasoucasnost.cz). Lord Killanin added that the IOC would continue to avoid getting involved into politics (“Průhledné intriky”. Rudé právo) – by this he meant especially the National Olympic Committees. Killanin did not want the National Committees to get under pressure from their country government – that would mean a strong limitation of their independence.

In the beginning of February, the executive body of the National Olympic Committee’s association met in , with 123 participating states in total. The members agreed on holding the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow, as the head of the Mexico City meeting,

16

Mario Vásquez Rana had hoped, and at the same time denounced the actions of the U. S. government to boycott the 22nd Summer Olympics in a resolution. The boycott was supported only by the representative of the United States of America (“Sdružení MOV proti bojkotu”. Rudé právo).

While starting the 1980 Lake Placid Winter Olympic Games, the International Olympic Committee arranged its 82nd meeting and Lord Killanin once more told: “The Olympic Games are matter of the International Olympic Committee and not of individual countries. The Olympic Games belong to the whole world.” (“Provokativní projev Cyruse Vance”. Rudé právo). Cyrus Vance, the United States Secretary of State, then right in front of the meeting repeated the request of the USA about changing the place of the Summer Olympiad; according to the Czechoslovak newspaper Rudé právo, this announcement made many members of the Committee very angry. Moreover, in the article (“Provokativní projev Cyruse Vance”. Rudé právo) there was also mentioned that a member of the White House team, Joseph Onek, threatened the International Olympic Committee that it could be destroyed if its members would reject what the United States wanted to achieve.

On April 12, 1980, the U. S. Olympic Committee met once more – in Colorado Springs – to make a final decision whether to participate in Moscow or not, although they were probably under pressure of the U. S. President Jimmy Carter with his government and even though they had already supported his ideas before the ultimatum to Soviet army in Afghanistan. The Committee declared against the participation by more than 66% of almost 2400 votes. In the communist newspaper this was seen as one of the worst decisions in the American sport history. According to the Czechoslovak press, there were again some attempts to threaten the members of the Committee, the roots of which could have been seen in the White

17

House and government, which can still be viewed as a partly controversial statement because the author of the article worked for the communist system. Nevertheless, Walter Mondale, the Vice- President of the United States of America, said that the participation of American sportsmen might be dangerous for the security of the USA. Robert Kane, the head of U. S. Olympic Committee, felt that the USOC could not choose any other opportunity as they were under a strong pressure and he admitted that the Committee had to stop thinking about their athletes due to the circumstances (Jelínek, “Strhli vlastní vlajku...” Rudé právo).

In both the U. S. government and the U. S. Olympic Committee made it definitely clear that the American athletes were surely not participating.

As a reaction, Australian parliament recommended their sportsmen not to participate in Moscow and the Israeli government shared the same opinion as well (Kršák 28-29). Many other countries like , , or China – joined the boycott of the Moscow Games. Kolář writes that the National Olympic Committees of the , France, and most of the other “western” European states decided to go to Moscow despite the fact they could not use their country’s national anthem and flag – these participants had to compete under the International Olympic Committee flag (Dejinyasoucasnost.cz). The total number of boycotting states had finally risen to 67 which meant that “only” 80 countries competed in Moscow (Kolář. “Bojkoty Olympijských her”). This number of participating countries was the lowest one since 1956 Olympiad in , Australia. 5, 197 athletes appeared in 203 events of the 22nd Summer Olympiad (“Moscow 1980 Summer Olympic Games”. Olympic.org). The fans watching the races and competitions then sang their national anthem despite the fact that they could not listen to it from the loudspeakers (Poberová 56).

18

The Moscow Olympiad is also known for other specific facts. Not merely were these Olympic Games the only ones held in a socialistic country – for example, the of the Games, a bear called , changed its “outlook” for the final ceremony – he had a tear on his face as a sign of sadness (“Moscow Summer Olympic Games”. Olympic.org.). Also, the shops in Moscow offered many more things than they did normally and the prices of the goods were on a very low level (Pacut 77).

During the 1980 Summer Olympic contests, no internationally important conflict, connected with the relations between the United States of America and the Soviet Union, happened. It is highly probable that many hundreds of police officers and members of KGB, the security agency of the Soviet Union, were working both officially and undercover to guard the peace and calm atmosphere in the streets of Moscow.

4.1.3 Liberty Bell Classic

During the time of the Moscow Olympiad, the alternative games called “Liberty Bell Classic” were held in , , as Jimmy Carter, the U. S. President, promised. (Currall, Hiddencityphila.org). These games were arranged just for the nations that agreed with the boycott and did not participate in Moscow. The competitions lasted only two days, on July 16 and July 17, 1980, and over 370 athletes from 30 countries participated. Even though these games were taken as a part of the protest, only about 20,000 spectators came to see these games and it definitely did not make any strong impression on the American public.

19

4.2 Los Angeles 1984

The Games in 1984 were held in the most powerful country of the world’s political extreme opposite of the Eastern Bloc – the United States of America. A way to a kind of revenge for the Moscow Olympics was opened, no matter whether wanted or unwanted by the powerful people.

4.2.1 The Election of Los Angeles

The decision of International Olympic Committee about the 23rd city, which could be proud of hosting the Olympic Games, was made in 1978. In the end, it was quite easy, as the only opponent of Los Angeles was Tehran – and the people supporting the Iranian capital city decided to back out of the election, mainly due to internal political problems of Iran. The reasons for this small number of cities that wanted and tried to be the candidates for the 1984 Olympic Games, were the financial problems of the Montreal Olympiad in 1976 and the terrorist attack in 1972 (“Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games”. Olympic.org.).

The mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, did not support holding the Summer Olympic Games in “his” city much at first. He was afraid of protests and he was not sure about having enough money to cover all the costs, mainly because all these things happened to another American city – Denver, Colorado – which was supposed to hold the Winter Olympics in 1976; finally, the 1976 Olympiad was moved to Innsbruck, Austria (Poberová 139).

The Los Angeles Games were the first that were held without the financial help of the country’s government. The financial problems meant a big uncertainty about the success not only in the financial part of holding the Games. The team of organizers wanted the

20

International Olympic Committee and the National Committees to help these Games and take a part also in all the risks connected with the Olympiad. Lord Killanin, the head of the International Olympic Committee, answered that the IOC is prepared to choose another city if the Los Angeles team would continue to behave like in this case (Kolář, “Bojkot, nebo neúčast?”).

Neither the state of California nor the city of Los Angeles provided any help, too. In the end, the International Olympic Committee even had to change the 4th article of the for the reasons mentioned in the previous sentences – otherwise it would not be possible to allow financing the Olympic Games with the “private” sources (Kolář, “Bojkot, nebo neúčast?”).

Therefore, the Los Angeles Olympiad would not be successful without the sponsors and the policy of really controlled expenses and the use of existing facilities as much as possible. The most-known companies from the United States helped and their advertisement had a lot of space during the Games thanks to the money. McDonald’s, United Airlines, Canon, Coca-Cola or General Motors took part. Some stadiums were named after these companies. Also, the American TV company ABC signed a contract for exclusive rights to broadcast the Olympiad – the price for these rights was supposed to be higher than 200 million dollars.

The Soviet Union definitely did not agree with this change – probably not only because it was a socialistic country, which meant they did not support the private businessmen, but also as one of the signs telling the world that the Soviets were still very “unsatisfied” with the boycott of their Games in Moscow in 1980. They also proclaimed that they are afraid of the way the International Olympic Movement was heading towards when it allowed such a big change – according to them it was signifying a completely new way of

21 commercialization of the Olympic Games and big advantages and influence for the entrepreneurs. As Staněk mentions, dangerous signs of this type could be indentified in Los Angeles, as the services for the participants were there as expensive as never before. The article also mentions various kinds of fees for the journalists and accuses the International Olympic Committee of letting the Los Angeles team of organizers to behave like this (Staněk. Rudé právo). Not only the communist press criticized the commercialization of the Olympic Games; also American newspaper like The Wall Street Journal wrote about trampling on the Olympic traditions (Bezrukavnikov 32). The U. S. press was also not much satisfied with the plan about the Olympic torch – anyone could carry the Torch when he paid 3,000 dollars. The length was set to be one kilometre for everyone and it caused a huge wave of disagreement around the world, , as the traditional Olympic country, even refused to take part in this action.

What is more, many of the National Olympic Committees did not agree with the way of Los Angeles’ Olympiad organization neither. Finally, a new leader of the International Olympic Committee, , decided to decrease the prices for the lodging of the sportsmen and also their transport.

The U. S. government allowed the participants of the Olympiad (who had to have a special passport) to come to the United States on the special ships and planes, which could not stay in the American harbours in a normal situation. Even though this permission was in effect, the Soviet ship had to go through many complications. As the Soviet exile said, the ship should have been used for espionage and worked as a secret spy shelter. According to the interview with Petr Pašek, who was in 1984 the director of an exile publishing company “Confrontation” and one of the main members of Ban the Soviets Coalition in United States of America, the U. S. government finally allowed the Soviet ship to anchor in Los Angeles, even though the

22 circumstances were quite strange, when we think of the government’s previous proposals The Ban for Soviets Coalition, which wanted the Soviets not to compete in Los Angeles 1984, was founded by the exile citizens. The people on the top of this organization were the exiles from the republics in thrall of the Soviet Union’s government and from countries - countries behind the so called . The main arguments for their activities were the Soviets’ destroying a Korean aeroplane by the Soviet missiles or the continuing actions of the Soviet army in Afghanistan (Breber (II). Lidovky.cz).

4.2.2 The Boycott of Eastern Bloc Participants

The Soviet Union started the campaign against the U. S. Summer Olympic Games by sharing their opinion about the lack of security for their sportsmen with the world. The Soviets were not talking only about themselves but in fact about the whole Eastern Bloc. It was a reaction to the alleged efforts and provocations to make the Eastern Bloc sportsmen leave the United States.

The U. S. President Ronald Reagan was blamed for disadvantaging the communist participants not only because of his wish of unsuccessful Olympiad for the Soviet Union, but also because of he should have wanted to make use of his anticommunist campaign in the upcoming U. S. President elections (Rovenský. Rudé právo.).

On April 9th, 1984, the National Olympic Committee of the Soviet Union finally decided to bring out a declaration in which they summarize the Soviet opinions, complaints and requests. Soviets believed that they were being humiliated by American anti-Soviet and anti-communist campaign. They also speak about the Ban for Soviets Coalition and think that this organization is supported by the U. S. government. The declaration also says that Soviets are afraid of the low level of security for their athletes as there is a high possibility of

23 demonstrations in the time of the duration of these Olympic Games. Americans are also reproached for the massive commercialization of the 1984 Olympiad and that the efforts to earn as much money as possible from the Games are just too clear and exaggerated – the prices were out of control in the city of Los Angeles. They also wanted the International Olympic Committee to control the observance of the Olympic Charter.

According to the communist press in Czechoslovakia, the team of organizers of the Los Angeles Games admitted that they really might have broken the rules of the Olympic Charter and they promised to let the sportsmen come without further problems if they had their accreditation (“V Los Angeles se připravují provokace”. Rudé právo.).

The representatives of the National Olympic Committee of Soviet Union were still not satisfied and came with other things seen by them as problems. They complained about the accommodation, as in Los Angeles there was not only one Olympic village for all the participating athletes, but three smaller ones that were in different areas of the city of LA. The prices for telephones were also criticized in this message to the world by the Soviets. However, there was one thing that meant the biggest problem for the Eastern Bloc – the Radio Free Europe’s journalists in California. The reason was evident – the radio was “fighting” against the communist countries. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union still did not talk about the boycott and blamed United States for using these words in connection with the Soviet Union only because they used this way of behaviour themselves (Jelínek, Vážné znepokojení”. Rudé právo).

In Lausanne, , another meeting of executive body of the International Olympic Committee took place on April 24th, 1984. It was initiated by the Soviet representatives who simply wanted to show

24 how much they were unsatisfied with the things they saw as negative. Their complaints meant that they were allowed to visit the meeting – and in terms of equal possibilities, the Los Angeles Games organizers came to Lausanne, too; the meeting finally agreed on the legitimacy of the Soviet complaints. A special team of supervisors was established in Lausanne – and its aim was to control the observance of the Olympic Charter during the Olympiad in Los Angeles.

4.2.3 The Final Decision

The Communist Party and the National Olympic Committee of the Soviet Union discussed the participation of “their” athletes, too. On May 8th, 1984, the final decision was made.

In an official attitude the Soviets adopted, they decided not to participate. There were more reasons for this result: one of the Soviet arguments was that the Americans continued with lack of respect for the International Olympic Committee requests; the others were for example the influence of U. S. government on the organizing team in Los Angeles, California, by which they did not respect the Lausanne resolution and the efforts of the American officials to prevent the start of Soviet sportsmen in LA. If we look at the decision from a bit simpler view, we can find out that Soviets used this document for word attacks on the United States as such – they blamed the USA for the anti-Soviet campaign. The Soviet Union tried to cover it and make it a little more politically correct by the sentence about not blaming the American public and athletes, but the message as a whole was quite clear.

According to Rudé právo from May 15th, 1984, the American President, Ronald Reagan, answered the Soviet complaints and promised to Juan Antonio Samaranch, the head of the International Olympic Committee, not to break the rules of the Olympic Charter.

25

Reagan added that all the participants are welcome to the United States and that no discrimination could be found.

Moscow discussed the situation in the Communist Party. When the problem of the Olympic Charter was solved, they did not have a factual reason for not going to the California Olympic Games. It seems that Soviets really wanted to pay the United States of America back for their boycott of Moscow 1980 Summer Olympic Games – otherwise they would not try to find still newer and newer problems of the Los Angeles Olympiad, like the danger of corrupted referees and the doping controls. By this threat of making the life harder for the communist athletes, the Soviets found what the reason they needed again (Kolář, “Bojkot, nebo neúčast?”).

After Los Angeles accepted the resolution of International Olympic Committee and confirmed the promise of putting all the athletes and all the nations on an equal footing, they decided to ask for a change for any future boycotting in the Olympic Charter – they wished that for any country boycotting the upcoming Games it would impossible to participate in the next Olympiad (Kolář, “Bojkot, nebo neúčast?”).

The National Olympic Committees of the Eastern Bloc countries met to discuss the problem also. They met in on May 25th, 1984 and the representatives of the International Olympic Committee, including their chairman Juan Antonio Samaranch and also other top members, came to solve any problems and requests of the East European countries. (“J. A. Samaranch v Praze”. Rudé právo). The communist meeting still proclaimed that the United States did not do much about the situation they criticized and according to the national committees just small things – out of which none was really important – were changed. Especially the area of security was under a strong pressure from the communist side. This was the main reason for them why to refuse the participation in Los Angeles and talk about it as the

26 only possible solution. The communists also wanted the International Olympic Committee to be more conscientious in choosing which city would be honoured by holding the Olympic Games (“Všem stejné podmínky”. Rudé právo).

Kolář writes that Juan Antonio Samaranch became quite concerned about the future functioning of the Olympic Games, as the Eastern Bloc countries still hesitated a lot about their participation in Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles. The same group of International Olympic Committee members which visited the meeting in Prague had to continue to Moscow then, where they could speak with the elites of the Soviet state. For the 1984 Summer Olympiad, unfortunately, this group heard only neutral and empty talks from the Soviet representatives, such as those about the Soviet wish to cooperate with the International Olympic Committee, which in fact did not help to solve anything about the contemporary problems (“J. A. Samaranch odcestoval ze SSSR”. Rudé právo).

Even though Samaranch was not satisfied with the situation at all and he wanted to know more about the motives that influenced the requests and complaints of Eastern Bloc countries and even though Samaranch, as the head of International Olympic Committee, accepted the Eastern Bloc objections and criticism as legitimate to make them compete in Los Angeles (“Nejtemnější den sportovní historie”. Idnes.cz), his wishes and influence were not successful enough to change the decision of communist countries, led by the Soviet superpower.

As we know from the history, the place of the 23rd Olympiad did not change and Los Angeles, California, still remained the hosting city of these Summer Olympic Games, despite all the problems. Even though that these Games were criticized (mainly from the financial point of view) in the time of their duration, they ended in very positive

27 numbers and thanks to making this profit out of the Olympiad, Los Angeles became a model for the future Games (“Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games”. Olympic.org.). The International Olympic Committee had to be satisfied as well – half of the amount of money earned in Los Angeles came to them.

4.2.4 The Friendship Games

The Liberty Bell Classic, the sport event hosted by the U. S. city of Philadelphia, which should have meant a counterweight to the official Olympic Games in Moscow 1980, very probably became an inspiration for the Soviet politicians for arranging a very similar type of event – The Friendship Games (called “Druzhba” in ).

These unofficial Games were, at least from most of the Czechoslovak athletes, not taken as very prestigious. In fact, their feelings about this event were negative quite a lot. Jozef Pribilinec, a Czechoslovak racewalker, said that the participation in Druzhba was just a really ridiculous thing and he felt very angry about it - even though the amount of money that the sportsmen could win was the same as in Los Angeles, the lack of international status and respect for the unofficial Games was visible.

5 OLYMPIC BOYCOTTS AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Both of the described boycotts influenced Czechoslovakia, as the country used to be a part of Eastern Bloc; and both of them had different impacts on the people who were at least somehow connected with sport.

28

5.1 Moscow 1980

Czechoslovakia was under the influence of the Soviet Union and therefore our Olympic team travelled to Moscow Games. The boycott was not a real option and thought for our country in any moment while waiting for the start of these Olympic Games. 211 Czechoslovak athletes participated, which meant a record number for us and the history of the Olympic Games (“Olympic.cz: Moskva 1980”. Olympic.org).

5.1.1 Successes – Record Number of Medals

The Czechoslovak football team and Ota Zaremba, competing in men’s weightlifting (in the 90 - 100 kilogramme category), won the gold medal in Moscow. Czechoslovaks also won four silver medals, including Imrich Bugár in discus throw and Jarmila Kratochvílová in another athletics event – 400m women competition. They both (and more athletes with them) wished to try to enhance their result by winning a gold medal four years after the Moscow Games – in Los Angeles. However, their destiny was “planned” in other – wrong – way, as will be described later. Nevertheless, in 1980, nine other Czechoslovak athletes won the . Two of these medals were gained in team-cycling and wrestling freestyle, one in , artistic gymnastics, and weightlifting (but in a different category than Zaremba). The remaining ninth (but definitely not the least) medal was won by Vladimír Kocman in judo. He was also one of the athletes that were badly influenced by the latter 1984 boycott.

Even though it was the Soviet Union who won most medals and therefore was the most successful country of these Games, seen from the Czechoslovak point of view, the Games of 22nd Olympiad were successful. Moscow meant a number of 14 medals in total for the Czechoslovaks (“Olympic Games Medals, Results, Sports, Athletes.”

29

Olympic.org) even though some of the results were questioned because of doping suspicions (Křišťanová, BBC.co.uk), some of which were later acknowledged (for example Ota Zaremba).

5.2 Los Angeles 1984

The Eastern Bloc boycott of the Los Angeles 23rd Summer Olympic Games meant a big disruption of the careers of many Czechoslovak (and, of course, not only Czechoslovak) athletes.

The Czechoslovak Olympic team hoped (after a really successful performance in Moscow 1980) for another great number of medals. Some of our athletes were in the top shape and had a great opportunity to make their life’s best result. Helena Fibingerová, Jarmila Kratochvílová, Jozef Pribilinec – these people were probably very close to gain some of the medals in their disciplines – unfortunately, only if they were allowed to travel to the United States.

What is more, these people were not the only ones who could hope for good results. The Czechoslovak handball team was on the world level in those times, the team of cyclists was also not without a chance. (“Bojkot Los Angeles...”. Ihned.cz)

5.2.1 The Proclamation of the Czechoslovak National Olympic Committee 1984

In March 1984, Rudolf Dušek, the vice-chairman of the Czechoslovak Sport Federation, came to the governing politicians and showed his point of view on how should the upcoming Los Angeles Olympiad look like – he said that the plan is to win at least 20 medals - but he also gave an indication of “anti-socialistic tendencies in Los Angeles”, about which he knew before, as he said. On April 13th,

30

1984, the Czechoslovak National Olympic Committee announced their suspicious opinion about the Olympic Games again.

On May 8th, 1984, the Soviet Union’s final decision about the “badly-developing” situation in the United States was made (“Nejtemnější den sportovní historie”. Idnes.cz). The Soviet Bloc countries’ sport delegates were even invited to Moscow on May 11th as the Soviet government wanted to make really sure about the decision of the friendly countries (this is also the moment when decided to compete as the only socialistic country in Los Angeles – despite the Soviet Union’s “recommendation”). When Antonín Himl, who was in Moscow as the Czechoslovak member of this meeting, came back, the situation was clear and “sentenced” by Soviets to the only possible result – the boycott. On May 12th, 1984, all the 57 members of the Czechoslovak Olympic Committee that came to make the final vote (some of the total number of delegates did not want to join this meeting because they did not agree with what was prepared to happen), agreed on not allowing the athletes leaving from Czechoslovakia to the California Olympic Games. (“Nejtemnější den sportovní historie”. Idnes.cz). The final decision was also proclaimed to the public.

It is quite obvious, that the statements presented in this message to the world, was not that different from the Soviet one. The communist politicians were obsessed with the topic of security in their proclamations. The main reasons for all their steps and moves, which they tried to hide from the public, were a kind of revenge on the boycott of previous Moscow Olympiad as a part of a political struggle. As the Soviets did not want to make this fact so obvious, the use of the word “boycott” was prohibited not only for their own press, but also for their political allies (“Nejtemnější den sportovní historie”. Idnes.cz).

31

Many people involved in the process of decision were later asked why they voted in the way they did. Although they connected were very closely with the decision not to travel to the USA in 1984, it seems that many of them did not agree with it much. When the Mladá Fronta Dnes journalists asked some of the functionaries of the Czechoslovak Olympic Committee in 2004, at the occasion of the 20th anniversary of this decision, about their own opinion and view about that situation, they answered in quite similar way.

According to the officials’ statements, there was no way how to change the reality, even though they knew that the reasons for the boycott were, exaggeratedly said, very doubtful. Except this main reaction of not being capable of changing the Communist Party’s will (not only the Czechoslovak, but in fact the Soviet one as well), some of them presented interesting comments. For example, Vladimír Černušák, the vice-president of the Czechoslovak Olympic Committee, said that the Western colleagues, officials of other Olympic Committees, asked about the things which were the Czechoslovaks afraid of in Los Angeles. According to Černušák, that question was very hard to answer. He also added that Juan Antonio Samaranch, as the head of the International Olympic Committee and a former ambassador in the Soviet Union capital, understood the reasons for the decision (“Nejtemnější den sportovní historie”. Idnes.cz).

Even the former journalist of the Czechoslovak Sport, Ladislav Krnáč, retired in 2004, was told to vindicate the 1984 boycott in the newspapers. After he refused to do so and write about the situation as he felt, his text was changed, so that it supported the boycott anyway.

Jiří Vícha, the coach of the Czechoslovak handball team in 1984, felt that it was the cruellest moment of his life and career. He refused to say publicly that Los Angeles, as a part of the United States of America, is a very dangerous place for holding the Olympic Games.

32

Vícha also refused to be a coach of the team for the Friendship Games and he quit. (“Nejtemnější den sportovní historie”. Idnes.cz)

5.2.2 The Athletes and the Boycott

All the people I wrote about in the previous chapter were influenced by the situation a lot – mostly in a bad way – but no one was harmed as much as the athletes themselves.

As said before, the topic of low level of security for athletes in Californian capital city, which was criticized by the Soviet Union and led to the boycott, was not taken very well by some athletes. The communist system in our country did not allow them to protest in an open way, but they still sometimes showed their disappointment. It is not surprising at all – definitely this situation meant one of the strongest moments of their careers and these moments were very probably one of the worst they had to get through during their life, aimed at being successful at their category of sport.

Jozef Pribilinec, the leader of the 1984 racewalkers’ statistics, lost the motivation when he heard about the impossibility to compete in Los Angeles. He stopped training and that had to mean his fall from the first place to the 89th position in the world – all this in just three months, which is a really unusually short amount of time. Finally, he was able to get rid of the feeling of betrayal or hate and managed to win his dreamt-of gold medal in Olympic Games in 1988.

A very similar thing – the lack of motivation – hurt also the famous Czechoslovak runner, Jarmila Kratochvílová (33 years old in 1984), who is still holding the world record in the 800 meters run nowadays. As she said, for the world record she gained 3,000 Czechoslovak crowns and for the silver medal from Moscow 12,000 crowns – which was quite a lot in comparison with the salaries here in Czechoslovakia

33

– but if she won the Olympic race in Los Angeles, she could have won 60,000 crowns. Los Angeles could have been her last Olympic Games as she finished her career in 1987 and what is more, she was, together with a football player Jozef Chovanec, supposed to be honoured by swearing to the Olympic Charter for Czechoslovakia, but she had to try to overcome a strong disappointment.

Helena Fibingerová, the Czechoslovak best shot-putter, supported the boycott in 1984 officially. This is what she said in her proclamation for the official (and thus communist) Czechoslovak Television on May 13th, 1984:

“I would like to say that it is hard for me to speak about this now... I have participated in two Olympic Games and I was nominated for another Olympiad – meaning the Moscow Games. Unfortunately, three weeks before the start, a serious injury caused that I could not travel to Moscow. This would be the fourth time I would compete and therefore I have been practicing even harder and more intensively, I have been going beyond my own abilities and I have felt exhausted many times. While being exhausted, I was always thinking about the Olympic Games from morning to evening, about the great moments and memories I have from and I was dreaming to experience moments like these once more – in Los Angeles – because I believe there is nothing as beautiful as to ask foreigners to pay homage to our country while listening to our national anthem... and reach it by a performance. Now although I know that a moment like this will not come, I agree with the Czechoslovak Olympic Committee’s attitude. An anomalous situation emerged in some spheres and the pureness of the Olympic idea is not guaranteed. It is really hard for me but I would like to say that the Los Angeles Olympic Games does not mean an end of my life. Now we, the athletes, have to use all our moral and mental strength that makes us so strong in our tough competitions and races, to represent our country on the international athletic meetings. We

34 have to obtain the satisfaction and the strength from our performances there – because we have been preparing as much as we could – and I ask my colleagues to do that because, as I repeat, the Los Angeles Games do not mean everything in our lives.” (Před 25 lety: 13. 5. 2009”. Ceskatelevize.cz.)

After the Velvet Revolution, she said she regretted that she was not allowed to be in Los Angeles, did not agree with it, and admitted that she was drinking alcohol together with her coaches when the TV broadcasted the 1984 Olympic Shot put final competition. (“Bojkot Los Angeles...”. Ihned.cz)

6 THE POLICY AFTER GORBACHEV’S ASCENSION

One of the biggest changes and in the political game of power called “the Cold War” came in 1985. The death of United Soviet Socialistic Republics head, Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko, meant a really huge turning point in the world’s history, as the way to the Soviet leadership was opened for Mikhail Gorbachev, the future reformer.

6.1 Mikhail Gorbachev

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, the first and at the same time the last head of the Soviet Union born after the 1917 Great October Socialistic Revolution, which brought the power in to the sphere of communist politicians; the exact date of Gorbachev’s birth is March 3, 1931. From 1985 (Gaddis 197) to 1990 he was the highest official of the Soviet Union in the function of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (after mentioned before) and later continued in his leadership over the Soviet Union as the only President of the Union of the Soviet

35

Socialist Republics (1990 – 1991). For his changes in the economics and policy of the Eastern superpower (and in fact the whole Eastern Bloc) he was quite popular in Europe; he did not use military power to end the changes in Eastern Europe in 1989 (“Union of Soviet Socialistic Republic (Historical State, Eurasia)”. Britannica.com). Citing the official Nobel Prize website, “For his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community”, Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 (“The Nobel Peace Prize 1990”. Nobelprize.org).

6.2 Glasnost and Perestroika

These two words, written in the head of this part of the thesis, are the most significant ones for Mikhail Gorbachev.

The Soviet Union found itself in a still more and more difficult economic situation. Factories were not modernized properly and therefore their efficiency was getting lower a lot and the agricultural part of the Soviets economy suffered from similar problems. The products that were exported and sold by the Soviet Union were not able to reach the high quality standards.

Glasnost, in English meaning openness, started the open discussions about political and social issues in the Soviet Union Criticism of problems was allowed and mainly thanks to this, the media became freer than ever before. The people living in Soviet Union were probably not ready for all the news and were shocked by what was happening in the political sphere of their country (“Glasnost and Perestroika”. Coldwar.org). Generally speaking, despite the described problems, glasnost decreased the ideological power and influence of the Communist Party a lot. (“Glasnost...”. Britannica.com).

36

As for perestroika, this term is a name of a programme connected with the economical part of the Soviet policy, the closest word in English would be reconstruction, restructuring. The Soviet Union started to change their system from the country with centralized economy by the de-monopolization of their huge companies and supporting the smaller industrial companies to make them self- profitable. The economical system was supposed to work on a kind of semi-private basis, semi-free market system. By restructuring the industry for improving the position of Soviet economy, the Soviets wanted and needed to get much closer to the level of the Western wealthier countries – not only the United States but also Japan and some other economically strong countries, like West Germany (“Perestroika...”. Britannica.com) However, the disadvantageous system could not change in such a short time, which means that the temporary period of transformation caused continuing trouble to thousands of people, who were unsatisfied with their situation. Together with feeling uncomfortable about changing the status quo by their government’s glasnost, this led to panic and social protests (“Glasnost and Perestroika”. Coldwar.org).

Luckily for the world’s history, in spite of the fact that the number of protests increased and it could have meant the end of all Gorbachev’s reforms, the Soviet leader was able to handle with the pressure and to reach his economical goals.

6.3 Conferences Changing the World

After Mikhail Gorbachev took the political power over Soviet Union, the international relations between the “West” and the “East” started to be more and more positive and what means probably even more, cooperative. The world might have started to have a feeling that the tension is beginning to weaken.

37

Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, was agreeable to the change in the Soviet way of politic and thus he was willing to renew the talks with the Soviet Union about the economic issues and the arm power of both world superpowers.

As we can see from the historical point of view, the first chance to see the approaching changes was in Geneva, Switzerland. In this Swiss city the first of the Soviet-American negotiations took place in November 1985 (Gaddis 229-230). The two leaders agreed on reducing the number of their nuclear weapons in their countries (“Ronald W. Reagan ...”. Britannica.com). Reagan and Gorbachev also made an arrangement about reopening cultural exchange projects in Geneva (LaFeber 324).

The second meeting (almost a year later, in October 1986) was arranged in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland. Unfortunately, this meeting was not as successful as the previous one in Geneva. In Reykjavik, Gorbachev introduced the idea of a 50 percent decrease of the nuclear arsenal of both countries and the development of the talks seemed to finish successfully. However, Soviets insisted on an agreement on all their requests and this was a problem. As the discussion came to the point talking about Strategic Defence Initiative, a United States’ plan to create a system with a defensive function – a shield against nuclear attacks or other ballistic missiles – the Americans did not want to make any concessions to the Soviet Union on this project.

The probably most important meeting took place in Washington, D. C., USA, in the last month of 1987. In the U. S. capital, eliminating the medium- and short-range nuclear missiles was arranged (LaFeber 325). This led to the fact that Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on the so called Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed by these two leaders in Moscow in 1988, even though not all of the practical

38 aspects were discussed. The Strategic Defence Initiative was no longer a part of the talks (neither in Washington, D. C., nor in Moscow) as the opinions of both countries did not change since the Reykjavík Summit.

Thanks to the previous agreements, Soviet army left Afghanistan, which meant the basics of the Second Cold War, even though Ronald Reagan was replaced by George Bush. The negotiations continued as both the Americans and the Soviet representatives had the willingness to agree on reasonable changes in their relationship. The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and the START Treaty (abbreviation of Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) were signed. However, the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics came to its end in 1991 and therefore the practical aspects of these treaties could not have been finished properly. (“Union of Soviet Socialistic Republic (Historical State, Eurasia)”. Britannica.com)

7 CONCLUSION

The Second Cold War brought huge and very important changes to the world’s history. Due to the fact it was not an armed conflict and there were no real battles, it meant that not only thousands of soldiers in a particular war zone were affected by the events and actions connected with the war. The effects of this conflict influenced almost all branches of the human life during the years. Many neutral organizations and events have been influenced even though it should have had nothing in common with politics, its representatives or any ideology.

Lives of an overwhelming majority of the public signifying and containing many different types of people, not taking into consideration their age, position or, in fact, any other personal aspect, were being changed during this time. Unfortunately, it is logical that

39 this meant an unwanted impact on the sportsmen, idols and maybe even heroes of many people, but, were not an exception. They were still “normal” people who wanted to show their best performance and reach the goal they were fighting for their whole life - however, they were not allowed to entertain people by competing with each other two times, although they were (mostly) not involved in the political “game of functions” and power at all.

Many “normal” aspects of an established functioning of such a great sport and cultural event, like the International Olympic Committee’s Olympic Games, were changed due to the conflict. The political neutrality and impartiality might have been questioned by many people and many other organizations, for which the neutrality also meant the basis of their existence, might have felt frightened about what might happen to them. Attacking and decreasing the International Olympic Committee’s political and cultural status, the value of their neutrality, influence and respect – which, in fact, gave them the power to make decisions – also allowed various countries to devalue the organization’s international credit, for which the Committee had to start struggling once again to win it back in the future.

Neither the neutral organizations nor many of the active sportsmen were allowed to do what they were supposed to do in the way it should have looked like. It is very important to look back at the things that happened during all the parts of the Cold War, know more the actions and incidents of these times, understand the reasons why they happened and, hopefully, try to learn a lesson from this part of history, if we do not want to let similar things happen again.

40

8 LITERATURE AND SOURCES

PRINT SOURCES

Bezrukavnikov, Igor; Kukuškin, Vsevolod. Hry na prodej. Praha, 1986.

Dorazil, Otakar. Světové dějiny v kostce. Vimperk/Rudná u Prahy, 1997.

Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: a new history. New York, 2005.

Kolář, František. “Bojkoty Olympijských her”. Sport a politika. Ed. Slepičková, Irena; Slepička, Pavel. Praha, 2010, p. 107-115.

Kolář, František. “Bojkot, nebo neúčast?“. Fragmenty dějin. Ed. Hájek, Jan; Kocian, Jiří; Zítko, Milan. Praha, 2006, p. 593-608.

Kršák, Pavol. Moskva – Lake Placid 1980. Bratislava, 1981.

LaFeber, Walter. America, Russia, and the Cold War 1945-1992. 7th ed. New York, 1993.

Poberová, Jesika. Kronika olympijských her 1896 – 1996. Praha, 1996.

Pacner, Karel. Osudové okamžiky Československa. Praha, 2001.

Pacut, Miroslav; Kosík, Miloš: Dějiny moderního sportu. Ostrava, 2009.

Webster, Orville V. The Book of Presidents. Los Angeles, 1991.

41

PRINT SOURCES ONLINE

Howell, Charles P.. Montreal Olympics: An Insider’s View of Organizing a Self-financing Games. Books.google.cz. http://books.google.cz/books?id=JoXdQqfay00C&printsec=frontcover &dq=Montreal+Olympics:+An+Insider%27s+View+of+Organizing+a +Self- financing+Games&hl=cs&sa=X&ei=40UnUfnVFJS7hAeajIDIAw&v ed=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Montreal%20Olympics%3A% 20An%20Insider%27s%20View%20of%20Organizing%20a%20Self- financing%20Games&f=false

“J. A. Samaranch odcestoval ze SSSR”. Rudé právo. 1 6 1984, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1984/6/1/8.png

“J. A. Samaranch v Praze”. Rudé právo. 24 5 1984, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1984/5/24/8.png

Jelínek, Milan. “Strhli vlastní vlajku z olympijského stožáru”. Rudé právo. 14 4 1980, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1980/4/14/8.png

Jelínek, Milan. “Vážné znepokojení”. Rudé právo. 17 4 1984, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1984/4/17/8.png

“Moskva zvítězila”. Rudé právo. 24 10 1974, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1974/10/24/8.png

“Provokativní projev Cyruse Vance”. Rudé právo 11 2 1980, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1980/2/11/8.png

“Průhledné intriky”. Rudé právo. 22 1 1980, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1980/1/22/8.png

42

Rovenský, Dušan. “Studená válka proti olympijským idejím.” 16 4 1984, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1984/4/16/8.png

“Sdružení MOV proti bojkotu”. Rudé právo. 6 2 1980, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1980/2/6/8.png

Shlaim, Avi. The United States and the Berlin Blockade, 1948-1949: a study in crisis decision-making. Books.google.cz. http://books.google.cz/books?id=MnL0d70AuowC&printsec=frontcov er&dq=The+United+States+and+the+Berlin+Blockade,+1948- 1949:+A+Study+in+Crisis&hl=cs&sa=X&ei=q1UjUb2iLo- FhQfks4HwAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Staněk, Jaroslav. “Nebezpečné plány”. Rudé právo. 21 4 1984, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1984/4/21/8.png

“Světový sport ovlivnit nemohou”. Rudé právo. 15 4 1980, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1980/4/15/8.png

“Svobodné rozhodování”. Rudé právo. 29 1 1980, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1980/1/29/8.png

“V Los Angeles se připravují provokace”. Rudé právo. 11 4 1984, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1984/4/11/8.png

“Vietnamští a mongolští sportovci se nezúčastní LOH“. Rudé právo. 12 5 1984, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1984/5/12/8.png

“Všem stejné podmínky”. Rudé právo. 25 5 1984, p. 8. http://archiv.ucl.cas.cz/index.php?path=RudePravo/1984/5/25/8.png

43

WEB SOURCES

Allen, Richard V. “The Man Who Won the Cold War”. Hoover Digest Vol. 1, 2000. Hoover.org. 21 Nov. 2012. http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7398

“Bojkot Los Angeles: Moskva zavelela, a sportovci mohli sledovat OH nanejvýš v televizi.” Ihned.cz. 14 Nov. 2012. http://sport.ihned.cz/c1-56583180-bojkot-los-angeles-moskva- zavelela-a-sportovci-mohli-oh-sledovat-nanejvys-v-televizi

Breber, Jiří. “Jak to bylo s bojkotem olympiády v Los Angeles?” Lidovky.cz. 18 Dec. 2012.

(I) http://neviditelnypes.lidovky.cz/historie-jak-to-bylo-s- bojkotem-olympiady-v-los-angeles-i-pee- /p_zahranici.asp?c=A080804_094429_p_zahranici_wag (II) http://neviditelnypes.lidovky.cz/p_zahranici.asp?r=p_zahranici &c=A080804_225705_p_zahranici_wag

Currall, Stephen. “The Olympics Were Here. Sort Of.” Hiddencityphila.org. 5 Jan. 2013. http://hiddencityphila.org/2012/07/the-olympics-once-were-held-here- sort-of/

“Détente.” The Macmillan Dictionary and Thesaurus: Free English Dictionary Online. Macmillandictionary.com. 22 Sep. 2012. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/detente

“George C. Marshall – Biography”. Nobelprize.org. 10 Jan. 2013. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1953/marshal l.html

“Glasnost (Soviet Government Policy)”. Britannica.com. 21 Sep. 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/234864/glasnost

44

“History of The United Nations”. UN.org. 17 Jan. 2013. http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/index.shtml

“History of The United Nations 1941 – 1950”. UN.org. 17 Jan. 2013. http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/1941-1950.shtml

“NATO History”. NATO.int. 18 Jan. 2013. http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html

Kolář, František. “Odveta za Moskvu.” Dejinyasoucasnost.cz. 11 Dec. 2012. http://dejinyasoucasnost.cz/archiv/2006/6/odveta-za-mosku-/

Křišťanová, Dita. “Historie olympijských her očima české účasti”. BBC.co.uk. 11 Dec. 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/czech/indepth/story/2004/08/040729_czech_oly mpics_history_pckg.shtml

“Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games”. Olympic.org. 17 Dec. 2012. http://www.olympic.org/los-angeles-1984-summer-olympics

“Moscow Summer Olympic Games”. Olympic.org. 13 Dec. 2012. http://www.olympic.org/moscow-1980-summer-olympics

“Nejtemnější den sportovní historie”. Idnes.cz. 14 Nov. 2012. http://oh.idnes.cz/nejtemnejsi-den-sportovni-historie-dbb- /sport_oh.aspx?c=A040512_151230_sport_oh_ruz

“The Nobel Peace Prize 1953”. Nobelprize.org. 10 Jan. 2013. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1953/

“The Nobel Peace Prize 1990”. Nobelprize.org. 5 Sep. 2013. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1990/

“Olympic Games Medals, Results, Sports, Athletes.” Olympic.org. 13 Dec. 2012.

45 http://www.olympic.org/content/results-and- medalists/searchresultpercountry/?athletename=&country=tch&sport2 =&games2=1980%2f1&event2=&mengender=true&womengender=tr ue&mixedgender=true&goldmedal=true&silvermedal=true&bronzem edal=true&worldrecord=false&olympicrecord=false&teamclassificati on=true&individualclassification=true&winter=true&summer=true

“Olympic.cz: Historie”. Olympic.cz. 3 Jan. 2013. www.olympic.cz/front/text/static/25

“Olympic.cz: Moskva 1980”. Olympic.cz. 11 Jan. 2013. http://www.olympic.cz/olympiada/41--moskva-1980

“The Organisation”. Olympic.org. 25 Nov. 2012 http://www.olympic.org/about-ioc-institution?tab=Presidents

“Perestroika (Soviet Government Policy)”. Britannica.com. 21 Sep. 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/451371/perestroika

“Postupimská konference”. Valka.cz. 26 Nov. 2012. http://studena.valka.cz/postupim.htm

“Před 25 lety: 13. 5. 2009”. Ceskatelevize.cz. 4 Oct. 2013. http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ivysilani/10132488909-pred-25- lety/209411000110513/

“Robert J. Kane, 81, Ex-Olympic Official And Aide at Cornell”. NYTimes.com. 6 Jan. 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/01/obituaries/robert-j-kane-81-ex- olympic-official-and-aide-at-cornell.html

“Ronald W. Reagan (President of the United States)”. Britannica.com. 25 Sep. 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/492882/Ronald-W- Reagan/214232/Relations-with-the-Soviet-Union#ref1074516

46

“U. S. Olympic Committee votes against Moscow”. History.com. 23 Nov. 2012. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-olympic- committee-votes-against-moscow-games

“Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics (Historical State, Eurasia)”. Britannica.com. 25 Sep. 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/614785/Union-of-Soviet- Socialist-Republics/42081/Foreign-policy#ref306292

Webbe, Stephen. “Olympic Games: Montreal can’t pick up the torch”. Csmonitor.com. 23 Nov. 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0121/012154.html

47