What significance did sport have for the Nazis?

Sport played an important role for the National Socialists, although they did not speak of sport, but of physical education. Their primary goal was to promote health and performance for a productive national economy and ultimately to be fit for war.
Individual sport was relegated to the background in favor of the collective, the masses, the so-called national body, to which every German should contribute as an individual in the best possible way. True to Nazi ideology, it was always about strength and fortitude.
“The weak must be hammered away,” begins a quote attributed to Adolf Hitler. “In my Ordensburg [educational facilities for the Nazi elite], a youth will grow up that will terrify the world. I want a violent, imperious, fearless, cruel youth. (…) I will have them trained in all physical exercises.”
These physical exercises were therefore compulsory in many of Nazi organizations, such as the Deutsches Jungvolk (DJ), the Hitler Youth (HJ), the League of German Girls (BDM) or Strength Through Joy (KdF). It was also recommended that young people join sports clubs.
In the Hitler Youth, but also in school sports, physical exercise was used to teach boys about being a soldier and military behavior, and to filter out young people who could later be considered for a leadership positions in the armed forces.
The Nazis were critical of international competitive sport, especially early on during the Weimar Republic. “Internationality, the Olympic movement, togetherness, international understanding, that was ideologically rejected,” historian Ansgar Molzberger from the German Sport University Cologne told DW.

Why did the Nazis still organize the Olympic Games in 1936?

In 1931, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the Olympic Games to Berlin during the days of the Weimar Republic. The Nazis, who came to power in the interim, however, were overt opponents of the Olympic movement.
The cosmopolitan idea of the Olympic Games was incompatible with their world view. Sporting competitions with members of the “enemy nations” from the World War I went against their sense of honor, and they rejected the IOC regulations on racial grounds.
However, those in power quickly realized — especially Hitler — what an opportunity the Games offered to present themselves to the world as a peace-loving, open, young state.
“There was a breathtaking turnaround,” says historian Molzberger. “Just as the Olympic movement, with its ideals of international understanding, had been strictly rejected until the end of the Weimar era, they [the Nazis] now presented themselves as great supporters of the Olympic movement.”
They also wanted to use the Games to demonstrate their own strengths of good organization and sporting success.

Were there any sports the Nazis promoted?

“One sport that can be emphasized in the context of school was boxing, which the National Socialists made compulsory for older boys,” says Molzberger. “Everyone had to learn to box in school sports.”
Team sports such as football and handball still existed, but the idea of fighting was always emphasized. “It was about fighting back, daring to do something together,” says Molzberger. “This was a repeated point of emphasis in team sports.”

What did physical exercise look like for women and girls?

Sporting activities for women were also strongly influenced by ideology. Women were primarily limited to their role as mothers and housewives. In order to fulfill these roles well, they were also expected to train their bodies, improve their health and fitness and strengthen their discipline.
The League of German Girls (BDM), in which girls between the ages of 10 and 18 were organized, also offered physical exercises intended to train them not only physically but also ideologically and prepare them for their future role in society.

Were Jews allowed to continue playing sports?

Shortly after the seizure of power, a law was passed on April 7, 1933, according to which civil servants and public employees who were Jews, non-Aryans or political opponents were no longer allowed to work in the civil service.
This so-called “Aryan paragraph” was gradually extended to oust Jews from professional and social life, including doctors, students and radio stations, the press, theaters, other cultural institutions and associations.
In principle, the paragraph also applied to sports clubs, but in view of the upcoming Olympic Games, Nazi leadership initially did not consistently demand its implementation. They did not want to make negative headlines before the 1936 Games and provide reasons for a possible withdrawal from or boycott of the Olympics. Nevertheless, there was criticism and calls for a boycott did follow. These intensified once again after the Nuremberg Race Laws were passed in 1935, which later formed the legal basis for the persecution and extermination of the Jews.
Nevertheless, many sports clubs and associations whose leaders were particularly convinced by the ideas of National Socialism implemented the Aryan Paragraph early on of their own accord and in anticipatory obedience. For example, the German Gymnastics Association, the largest German sports association at the time with 1.5 million members, excluded Jews just one day after the law was passed.
Other associations, such as the swimming, rowing and skiing associations, followed suit. The German Football Association (DFB) reacted less radically and continued to allow Jews to play. However, they were no longer allowed to hold leadership positions in soccer clubs. One prominent example is Kurt Landauer, who was club president of Bayern Munich for many years during the Weimar period and had to give up his position in 1933.
As a result of the exclusions, purely Jewish sports clubs experienced a real boom between 1933 and 1936, with a large increase in membership. Once the 1936 Olympic Games were over, however, the situation for Jews in Germany worsened.
“After the games, the mask could be dropped,” says Molzberger. “When the actual persecution of Jews began in 1938, Jewish sport was also systematically destroyed.”

In a scene that feels equal parts political satire and constitutional stress test, Marco Rubio has become the Trump administration’s man for all seasons, and all jobs.
Rubio, 53, now holds four prominent roles simultaneously: Secretary of State, Acting Administrator of the US Agency for International Development, Acting Archivist of the National Archives, and as of this week, Interim National Security Adviser.
The announcement came via a surprise post on Truth Social by former President Donald Trump, ousting NSA Michael Waltz and naming Rubio his replacement while nominating Waltz to serve as UN Ambassador.
The multi-hyphenate appointment raised eyebrows across Washington and drew laughs online.
US Vice President JD Vance, known for his sharp wit, couldn’t resist joking on X, “I think he could take on a bit more. If only there was a job opening for a devout Catholic…”, a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Pope, and the recent passing of Pope Francis.
Appearing on Fox News’ Hannity, Rubio gamely responded, “We thought about it, but you have to be an unmarried Catholic male. People don’t know that. You don’t have to be a priest, any unmarried Catholic male can be pope. But I got married and I’m happily married, so I guess I’ll miss out on that one.”
The rise of ‘secretary everything’
Rubio’s accumulation of power started when the Senate unanimously confirmed him as Secretary of State on Inauguration Day. But subsequent appointments have been more opaque.
In February, he was named acting USAID administrator just days before Trump loyalists Elon Musk and Pete Marocco began downsizing the aid agency. Then came his installation as acting archivist after Trump fired Colleen Shogan, reportedly in retaliation for the National Archives’ role in recovering classified documents from Mar-a-Lago.
Most recently, Rubio was tapped to replace Waltz at the National Security Council, learning of the decision, it seems, almost as suddenly as the public.
“We’ve seen him at the White House several times a week. His close working relationship with the president is clear,” said State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce when informed of the news mid-briefing, as reported NYT. “This is the miracle of modern technology and social media.”
An unprecedented power grab or administrative necessity?
Rubio’s quadruple-title reign appears unprecedented in modern US political history. The closest parallel may be Henry Kissinger, who served simultaneously as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser from 1973 to 1975, a dual role that even back then drew criticism for consolidating too much foreign policy power in one person.
Critics today are sounding similar alarms. “Directing even one federal agency is a full-time job,” noted Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “Rubio’s current positions are uniquely concerning.”
Ethical conflicts loom especially large in his dual roles as top diplomat and national archivist, a watchdog of federal agency records, including those from his own departments.
Is it about trust or control?
White House insiders say Rubio’s consolidation of power stems from the deep trust Trump places in him, and his close relationship with Susie Wiles, Trump’s chief of staff and political gatekeeper, as reported NYT. Rubio has long been viewed as a foreign policy hawk with ideological alignment on China and Iran, issues that Trump wants streamlined.
Still, questions abound: Will Rubio be paid four salaries? Can one person reasonably lead four departments? Is this a temporary fix, or a sign of more centralized power structures in Trump 2.0?
On Hannity, Rubio appeared unfazed by the workload. He pivoted quickly to policy, defending Trump’s diplomatic push in Ukraine and characterizing the mineral deal signed this week with Kyiv as a “major win” for US leverage in the conflict.
“This is not our war,” Rubio said. “Trump’s been the only leader in the world trying to talk to both sides and end the killing. But if they’re not close enough, maybe we need to focus more on China and Iran.”
The punchline that stuck
Despite the high-stakes roles and serious foreign policy implications, it was JD Vance’s papal jab that stole the show.
With a wink to his recent Vatican visit, hours before the pope’s death, Vance’s tweet quickly went viral, with commenters dubbing Rubio everything from “Pope Marco I” to “Secretary of the Universe.”
Rubio’s response, half humor, half deflection, might become the unofficial slogan of his tenure: “I’m happily married.”

Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage talks to the media after Sarah Pochin won the Runcorn and Helsby by-election at DCBL Halton Stadium, Widnes, Cheshire on May 2, 2025.
| Photo Credit: AP

The hard-right party Reform UK led by Nigel Farage won a seat in Parliament by a handful of votes and looked set to make more gains in results Friday (May 2, 2025) from local elections the party hopes will show it is a major player in British politics.

Reform’s Sarah Pochin was declared winner of the seat of Runcorn and Helsby in northwest England by six votes after a recount, defeating Labour candidate Karen Shore.

Labour easily won the district in last year’s national election, but its lawmaker, Mike Amesbury, was forced to quit after he was convicted of punching a constituent in a drunken rage.

Although Reform’s victory was one of the narrowest in British history, Mr. Farage said “it’s a very, very big moment indeed” for politics.

“We are not a protest party, even though there is much to protest about,” Mr. Farage told reporters at the election count.

The local elections on Thursday (May 1, 2025) in many areas of England were a test of feeling about Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s center-left Labour government, 10 months after it was elected in a landslide. Both Labour and the main opposition Conservative Party braced for losses in the midterm poll.

The Runcorn victory gives Reform, which got about 14% of the vote in last year’s national election, five of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. National polls now suggest its support equals or surpasses that of Labour and the Conservatives, and it hopes to displace the Conservatives as the country’s main party on the right before the next national election, due by 2029.

Reform candidate Andrea Jenkyns — a former Conservative lawmaker — was declared winner of the newly created mayoralty of the Greater Lincolnshire region of east-central England. Labour retained three other mayoralties.

Reform hopes to scoop up hundreds of municipal seats in the elections that are deciding 1,600 seats on 23 local councils, six mayoralties and one seat in Parliament. Ballots in most of those contests are being counted Friday (May 2, 2025).

The centrist Liberal Democrats also hope to build on their success in winning more affluent, socially liberal voters away from the Conservatives.

A majority of the local seats being contested were held by the Conservatives, whose leader Kemi Badenoch could face revolt if the party does very badly.

Ms. Badenoch acknowledged that the results could be “very difficult” for the Tories. The party did extremely well when these areas were last contested in 2021, a time when then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government enjoyed a surge in popularity due to the COVID-19 vaccine program.

Reform UK is the latest in a series of parties led by Mr. Farage, a veteran hard-right politician who was crucial in taking Britain out of the European Union through a 2016 referendum. A charismatic campaigner, he is a divisive figure who has said many migrants come to the U.K. from cultures “alien to ours.”

Reform blends Mr. Farage’s longstanding political themes — strong borders, curbing immigration — with policies reminiscent of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration. During the campaign Mr. Farage said he plans “a DOGE for every county” in England, inspired by Elon Musk’s controversial spending-slashing agency.

University of Strathclyde political scientist John Curtice said the results showed that politics in Britain, long dominated by the two big parties, was fragmenting and that “Reform are now posing a big threat to both Conservative and Labour.”

“They are a major challenge,” he told the BBC.