WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
What quarrel does Germany have with Japan? None of which I know. And as for Yugoslavia, Japan is its best trading partner in East Asia. Your brush seeks to tar too widely. It is the principal of the thing.

Quite true with respect to those countries and some others, but the statement rings true over the majority. I agree that the principal of banning a nation unilaterally is wrong, but the anti-Asian political aspect cannot be ignored.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
What quarrel does Germany have with Japan? None of which I know. And as for Yugoslavia, Japan is its best trading partner in East Asia. Your brush seeks to tar too widely. It is the principal of the thing.

Quite true with respect to those countries and some others, but the statement rings true over the majority. I agree that the principal of banning a nation unilaterally is wrong, but the anti-Asian political aspect cannot be ignored.

Generalizations make for poor diplomacy; too often they raise the hackles of those who are mis-identified.

As for anti-Asian bias, I do not quite see eye to eye with you; but you are welcome to your views.

Canada would prefer to avoid any appearance of one upsmanship in the relocation of the games, but while South Africa may be a perfectly acceptable location, it's skeptical that they can have the required infrastructure in place in the short time remaining. This is why a previous host was suggested, as they should have most of the physical locations and infrastructure already in place.

Canada, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, will not voice a preference for the site of relocation, and will favor any location the committee decides on that is sufficiently secure and fair for our Olympic team (ie, Canada will not attend games in Japan, China, Chosen, or India, as per recent news)

If anti-Asian sentiments were the cause of the boycott, then we would have boycotted prior to this, rather than extending our willingness to be hosted by Japan. Clearly, the Italian comments are part of a stand-up-comedy routine designed to alleviate tensions through the use of humor.

However, the Italian suggestion of the SAE for a venue does have a lot of merit, assuming South Africa has the appropriate facilities for hosting the Olympics. Our nomination of Los Angeles is based on that city's possession of existing facilities remaining from the 1932 Olympics.

Brazil and Romania also dislike being tarred with the brush of anti-Asian sentiments. While both countries are concerned about India, Romania due to India's recent westward surge, and Brazil because of India's ties to the SAE, those sentiments did not in any way affect either nations decision to boycott the Games, nor did the decision of its friends and allies to boycott influence its decision. Romania and Brazil are perhaps overly idealistic nations who see the Games as a time of athleticisim, teamwork, and competiition and that the squabblings of nations over worthless pieces of land and hurt feelings over past incidents should not be brought in and pollute the spirit of the Games.

I would like to point out in my view out of the 20 nations boycotting the Games, I count 10 that have little to no interest in Asia, and 12 that have little to no interest in the Far East so in my view I do not see an majority of nations with the potential for an anti-Asian bias.

I blame Hood for it all. He mentioned that 1940 was the year of the games in Japan and I thought "God! They actually want me to write stuff about the Games!" I was afraid I would have to start a war somehow but this seems to work out as well.

If Canada gets banned from the Games, Japan wins. If Japan gets stripped of the Games, I win and Japan as well as the Canadians won't come to polute the Japanese soil with their presence.

Quoted

The Dominion of Canada (and the Canadian Oympic Committee) does not recognize the JOC's right to unilaterally bar teams from competing in the Olympic Games

Actually, if you read the text, it says barring the nation of Canada from participating. I realize that it does not refer to the participants from Canada. Should even be possible to sail around it by performing as they probably did back then as "Dominion of Canada" instead of "Canada".

Quoted

Also, there are six inhabited continents, last I checked...unless Japan is attempting to bar Australia from participating as well, without bothering to recognize their existance...

http://en.beijing2008.cn/spirit/symbols/flag/index.shtml

Quoted

Pierre de Coubertin, the father of the modern Olympic Games, explains the meaning of the flag:

"The Olympic flag has a white background, with five interlaced rings in the centre: blue, yellow, black, green and red. This design is symbolic; it represents the five continents of the world, united by Olympism, while the six colours are those that appear on all the national flags of the world at the present time." (1931)

No indication how the five continents are made up, but you can't change the fact that there are five rings on the flag. It does makes sense what TC says that North and South America are considered as "America".

Quoted

it is abject embarassment at the certain knowledge that Canada will dominate the games to Japan's eternal shame

Unfortunately for you, history does not agree with you. Canada is probably favorite for 1940 Hockey gold, though, but they might end up being beaten by the British again like in 1936.

History also shows that since 1928, Canada outperformed Japan at the Summer Games on only 3 occasions (1984, 1992, 1996; you could add a 4th if you include 1948 where Canada outperformed Japan by just being there besides the 1 silver and 2 bronze ). Even in 1976, Japan was 5th overall and host nation Canada 27th (ouch!). I think we should blame the French Canadians for that one.


We could stick to historical and move the games to Helsinki, Finland (Summer) and St Moritz, Switzerland (Winter), though a move to LA due to the presence of facilities (like at St Moritz) there makes a lot of sense as well. With the existing facilities, it might even be possible to hold the Winter Games in December 1940 instead of waiting until 1942.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
I blame Hood for it all. He mentioned that 1940 was the year of the games in Japan and I thought "God! They actually want me to write stuff about the Games!" I was afraid I would have to start a war somehow but this seems to work out as well.

Speaking of news you don't feel like writing, you forgot a Japanese battleship and frigate in the Tasman Sea two quarters ago. Should we assume they ran out of fuel and ended up being aquired by the RAN? :\ (The Battleship in particular doesn't seem to have the range to go from the Indian Ocean to Tasman and back without stopping for gas somewhere, anyway...)

Quoted

I blame Hood for it all. He mentioned that 1940 was the year of the games in Japan and I thought "God! They actually want me to write stuff about the Games!" I was afraid I would have to start a war somehow but this seems to work out as well.

If you didn't wish to write it up, a brief and polite declination would have sufficed, rather than setting everyone on edge.

So then, 1940 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, and 1942 Winter Olympics in... somewhere.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
So then, 1940 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, and 1942 Winter Olympics in... somewhere.

I think Walter have a point in regard to the Winter Olympics. St Moritz have hosted the Winter games before so facilities should be available instead of waiting until 1942.

So let us sail to switzerland

Quoted

If you didn't wish to write it up, a brief and polite declination would have sufficed, rather than setting everyone on edge.

You're talking about the guy who spent years stabbing the Cleito naval treaty before he finally bled it to death.

Or it want to keep it on the same country, Lake Placid. Host of the 1932 games.

I would prefer to start the staggered schedule of every two years, but St. Moritz in 1940 or 42 is acceptable.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I would prefer to start the staggered schedule of every two years, but St. Moritz in 1940 or 42 is acceptable.

But you also have a good point. This announcement probalby comes one month plus before the Winter Olympics. Difficult to get a venue ready in one month, even one with some of the infrastructure in place. Then two years is not maybe enough time to get all infrastructure ready for games from scratch. perhaps a compromise of St Moritz or Lake Placid in 1942.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I would prefer to start the staggered schedule of every two years, but St. Moritz in 1940 or 42 is acceptable.

But you also have a good point. This announcement probalby comes one month plus before the Winter Olympics. Difficult to get a venue ready in one month, even one with some of the infrastructure in place.

Eighteen days prior, by my count.

By the time all of the above falls out, there is really no time for the 1940 Winter Olympics to retain their original schedule. Delaying until late 1940 would give the Swiss about nine to ten months. Since the facilities are there, it might be doable, but it'd be hasty.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I would prefer to start the staggered schedule of every two years, but St. Moritz in 1940 or 42 is acceptable.

But you also have a good point. This announcement probalby comes one month plus before the Winter Olympics. Difficult to get a venue ready in one month, even one with some of the infrastructure in place. Then two years is not maybe enough time to get all infrastructure ready for games from scratch. perhaps a compromise of St Moritz or Lake Placid in 1942.

Surely you mean *Summer Olympics*... in game terms, we are perhaps a month away from the start of the 1940 Summer Olympics, if that much. Very little time would be available to find an alternate summer venue, and barely enough to prepare for an alternate winter venue.

Per original post:

Quoted

V Olympic Winter Games to be held at Sapporo between February 3 and February 14 as well as the XII Olympic Summer Games to be held at Edo between September 21 and October 6.

Japanese pronouncement was made on January 16th.

Quoted

Speaking of news you don't feel like writing, you forgot a Japanese battleship and frigate in the Tasman Sea two quarters ago. Should we assume they ran out of fuel and ended up being aquired by the RAN? :\ (The Battleship in particular doesn't seem to have the range to go from the Indian Ocean to Tasman and back without stopping for gas somewhere, anyway...)

Huh? I thought only one quarter ago (Q4). From Sri Lanka to The Tasman Sea via the Southern end of Australia to Pacifica is well within range of the battleship at 15 knots. Moving at 10 knots should get her from the Tasman Sea to Japan. Of course that means it will take longer to get home. I would have to make some calculations, but I really didn't expect her to be back in Japan until February or so at that slower speed. If you're right though that it was in Q3, then that's my fault as I should have written about her arrival before then.

Quoted

If you didn't wish to write it up, a brief and polite declination would have sufficed, rather than setting everyone on edge.

I hope I don't insult you, but that's a bit boring. This way it's more interesting.

Quoted

You're talking about the guy who spent years stabbing the Cleito naval treaty before he finally bled it to death.

Actually, I don't see it that way. Others did it before me. Japan just gave it the final push into the coffin and nailed it shut.

Quoted

I hope I don't insult you, but that's a bit boring. This way it's more interesting.

As a player, I do find it insulting. But then, I often mis-understand humor.