My vote is for “A little of column A, a little of column B”. Had relations been otherwise good they might have shrugged off the slight from 1980 in an effort to gain the moral high ground. Had Americans not boycotted the 1980 Olympics, Russia could have sent its athletes despite Reagan’s sabre-rattling.
But the ability to “ruin” the US-based Olympics AND use a narrative of security concerns to counter the Reagan administration’s open antagonism? That was a propaganda opportunity too good to miss.
You would have to ask a Soviet visitor about their perceived risk. I know most of my (mostly white) acquaintances in Orange County were leery about visiting Central LA, and they had the benefit of local knowledge and common language.
Well, you were the one who made the claim that any visitor from a socialist country to 1984 Los Angeles would have been stupid not to have security concerns, so I don’t really think the burden is on me to investigate their perceived risk. Either way, there was certainly a lot of anti-Communist rhetoric and violence in 1978 Argentina, when the country - under a right-wing military dictatorship - hosted the FIFA World Cup, but that did not prevent Hungary and Poland from sending their teams there (the USSR didn’t qualify).
I just pointed out that people living 20 miles away had security concerns. If your argument is that Soviets should have known better than someone from Newport Beach, have at it.
A military dictatorship can safeguard the safety of visitors a lot better than someplace like LA in the mid-80s which easily claimed the title of serial killer capital of the world. The freedom of movement afforded people in the US would have been seen by someone from a police state like the USSR as extremely dangerous.
I, for one, would like to thank the Soviets for effectively giving 17yo me a summer’s worth of free fast food. That may have been the year I found $300 in one of the fake plant displays at the mall and immediately spent it on a Colecovision.
Snerk People from behind the Orange Curtain has always had exaggerated notions of the “dangers” of certain neighborhoods in L.A. Born and bred here and never been afraid to go anywhere (especially during the day) and never been mugged or assaulted either. Anecdata, but pretty strong anecdata among friends and acquaintances.
Again, the issue is not how dangerous Los Angeles was in 1984, but whether it was more dangerous for a Soviet visitor than for others. The Soviet government itself did not cite the level of non-political crime as a reason for its boycott, but the risk of specifically anti-Soviet sentiment.
In 1988 (the closest year to 1984 that I could find statistics for), the Soviet Union had a homicide rate of 9.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 8.4 in the U.S. (source). Going to America would not have been more dangerous for Soviet athletes than staying at home.
I remember reading an article during that period about two MickeyD franchisees in San Francisco during that giveaway period who had a dilemma. They weren’t minding the free food so much because people would also order fires and a drink which were both high-profit items but, while they had no trouble with the burger patty supply, they kept running out of Big Mac buns.
They knew where the bakery in Oakland was and one of them could drive a semi-tractor so they drove to the location, found a loaded trailer, and when no one was looking drove off with it. After splitting the load 50/50 they parked the trailer someplace neutral and phoned in where it could be found.
Do you, at least, acknowledge that there was a heightened amount of anti-Soviet sentiment in the US at that time and that the Reagan Administration actively contributed to that sentiment? If so, is it too big a leap on the part of the Soviets to have a heightened concern for their citizens in a city where the police were currently demonstrating their inability to stop a raging gang war, let alone potential domestic terrorism?
The “security concerns” may have been cover for a reprisal boycott by the Soviets, but anybody who thinks that Los Angeles in 1984 should have appeared as a safe and welcoming host to them has no awareness of just how things actually were.
Sure, I do that sentiment existed. Doesn’t make the story that security concerns were the rationale for the boycott any more credible, though.
The main concern Eastern bloc governments had when they were sending athletes to Western countries was not the safety of their athletes and the risk that they might get hurt. The main concern was that the athletes might use the opportunity to defect and never come back.
All of the people who claim that “the real danger was in athletes defecting” seem to forget that there weren’t mass defections at the Lake Placid Olympics in 1980 - or, for that matter, at any of the other numerous opportunities for their top athletes to defect.
1976 was when I really made a killing on those McDonalds scratchers. After ordering my burger and fries, the cashier just handed me a stack of those cards like they were trying to get rid of them. About half of them were for for the 100 Meter Men’s Butterfly which the US swept that year.
Interesting that your article takes the OP’s hypothesis as given:
Due in part to America’s actions four years prior, the Soviet Union, East Germany and many other communist nations boycotted the Los Angeles Olympics. With these sports powerhouse nations no longer participating, America’s competition was far less daunting.
