Images of Austria 1938.

[tigre]

Hello to all ; I repeat

please avoid ideological / political discussions, just pictures

........Hey Sid as you said

they are of historical interest.

and there is no question about swallowing propaganda at this time of the party.......and no problem with showing up the other side of the hill.....................but to all, please be rational .

Cheers. Raúl M .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Tigre,

A health warning is always necessary when dealing with photos about the Austrioan Anschluss because almost every one was taken by one side and often as part of a concerted propaganda campaign.

It is necessary to put the other side of these photos in words because most of the Austrian population was at home or work at the time, not taking photos of itself waving swastikas.

These photos were designed to deceive in the first place and, if they are allowed to pass without comment, that deception will be furthered today and here.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi Tigre,



because most of the Austrian population was at home or work at the time, not taking photos of itself waving swastikas.



Cheers,

Sid.

So was most of the British population on D Day .
And that the aim of the pictures was to convince ( not to deceive ) does not mean that the picture are false .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Indeed, the pictures are not false and nobody is pretending differently. You are setting up a straw man in suggesting otherwise and I don't have to defend propositions that are invented by others.

The problem is that the photos only show crowds containing a minority of the population of Linz and a small proportion of the population of Vienna. People need to know this or they may gain the mistaken impression, as the Nazis intended, that these demonstrations represent mass acclamation by most of the population. For example, in Vienna it was only about 17%. The photos don't show the 83% of Viennese who stayed away.

Why would it be wrong to put these photos into a fuller context by drawing attention to this? Not to do so would be to collude in the falsification of the historical record by the Nazis.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Hans1906]

A somewhat older German TV production:

Der Anschluß Österreich 1938 / The annexation of Austria 1938



* No one was present, the streets and squares deserted, stretching their right arm to the sky, they could only have been Aliens.
In Austria, there were only anti-fascists, except for a few confused spirits.


Hans

But seriously, the documentary is very bad, but still very typical of earlier reporting on this very complex subject.

[George L Gregory]

Hi Guys,

It is as well to remind ourselves in viewing all this that (1) these are all, without exception, Nazi propaganda images and (2) only a minority of the Austrian population actually turned out to greet the German invaders. Most stayed at home, especially in Vienna.

Cheers,

Sid.

So what if the images are from Nazi propaganda? The people in the images aren’t imaginary. The joys of the Austrians during the period of the Anschluss is well documented, even from people who were against the Nazis.

Your insistence on using the term “minority” to describe the Austrian population who greeted the Anschluss is disingenuous and in my opinion it is your attempt to convey a largely discredited claim (that the Anschluss wasn’t welcomed by most Austrians).

So what if most Austrians stayed at home? That’s not evidence that the majority of Austrians welcomed the Anschluss. Any big event does not bring out the majority of a population. A “minority” of the British public were out on the streets of the UK during VE Day, so what??? It’s a no-brainer that the majority of British people were happy that WW2 was over.

[George L Gregory]

Hi ljadw,

Indeed, the pictures are not false and nobody is pretending differently. You are setting up a straw man in suggesting otherwise and I don't have to defend propositions that are invented by others.

The problem is that the photos only show crowds containing a minority of the population of Linz and a small proportion of the population of Vienna. People need to know this or they may gain the mistaken impression, as the Nazis intended, that these demonstrations represent mass acclamation by most of the population. For example, in Vienna it was only about 17%. The photos don't show the 83% of Viennese who stayed away.

Why would it be wrong to put these photos into a fuller context by drawing attention to this? Not to do so would be to collude in the falsification of the historical record by the Nazis.

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw is correct that your use of the word “minority” is your attempt at you creating a straw man argument and not the other way around.

You don’t elaborate any further. So what if only a minority of the Austrian population were out on the streets during the annexation of Austria? What do you think that meant exactly?

What percentage of the London population turned out and appeared on the streets celebrating VE Day?

You’re really shooting yourself in the foot here Guttridge.

[George L Gregory]

Hello to all ; I repeat

please avoid ideological / political discussions, just pictures

........Hey Sid as you said

they are of historical interest.

and there is no question about swallowing propaganda at this time of the party.......and no problem with showing up the other side of the hill.....................but to all, please be rational .

Cheers. Raúl M .

Guttridge is not a person who thinks he’s always right so you’re wasting your time trying to reason with him. Every now and then he’ll post something of value but other than that he just thinks his opinions are facts and are not open to discussion.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi GLG,

I happen to agree that at that point a highly changeable majority of Austrian public opinion probably favoured Anschluss. However, given that no reliable vote or public opinion poll exists, this is more informed speculation than proven fact, like every other opinion on the subject.

However, the photos are not evidence of this, because they capture only a small minority of the populations of the two cities most are taken in - Vienna (where the crowds ammounted to only about about 17% of the population) and Linz, the town of Hitler's youth (where they reportedly amounted to about 40%). These are, indeed, "minorities". You can do the number crunching yourself, if you wish.

Most are propaganda photos taken to give the impression that Austrian support for Anschluss was really as high as the rigged Nazi plebiscite later claimed. Turnout was claimed to be 99.71% and the pro Anschluss vote 99.73% of that. Do you really believe such figures?

Ask yourself why Hitler found it necessary to mount a military invasion of Austria at short notice if he himself really believed such statistics. The reason was that he feared the plebiscite called by Schussnigg in favour of independence might pass. Sure, Schussnigg's referendum was likely to be considerably rigged, but so was Hitler's own. THE TRUTH IS THAT NOBODY KNOWS THE PRECISE STATE OF AUSTRIAN PUBLIC OPINION AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER PROPERLY TESTED.

Given the weight of Nazi propaganda around these photos, don't you think posters should be informed of the context in which they were taken?

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

Indeed, the pictures are not false and nobody is pretending differently. You are setting up a straw man in suggesting otherwise and I don't have to defend propositions that are invented by others.

The problem is that the photos only show crowds containing a minority of the population of Linz and a small proportion of the population of Vienna. People need to know this or they may gain the mistaken impression, as the Nazis intended, that these demonstrations represent mass acclamation by most of the population. For example, in Vienna it was only about 17%. The photos don't show the 83% of Viennese who stayed away.

Why would it be wrong to put these photos into a fuller context by drawing attention to this? Not to do so would be to collude in the falsification of the historical record by the Nazis.

Cheers,

Sid.

ALL photos ( on ALL occasions ) show only a minority of the population .That does not mean that those who are not on the photos did disagree with those who are on the photos .
17 % of the Viennese is enormous and we may assume that the overwhelming majority of the other 83 % agreed with the 17 % because there are no proofs that they disagreed with them .
NO ONE will say that ,because only a small part of the Londoners were saluting Churchill on D Day, that the others were indifferent or hostile to Churchill .
It is the same for Vienna in 1938 : unless there are photos of people who protested against the Anschluss (and there are none ), the conclusion is that the silent/absent majority agreed, for a lot of different reasons .
What we know is that 17 % of the population participated on pro Anschluss demonstrations and that NO ONE participated on anti Anschluss demonstrations ,which means that the silent majority agreed to the Anschluss, which was already a fait accompli .
You can't say that open support is the only proof that Schmidt supported the Anschluss,or that open support is the only proof that Jones supported Churchill .
As long as the silent majority does not protest, it supports .
When the Falkland forces returned, they were welcomed by a minority of the British people, that does not mean that those who did not welcome them,were hostile to them .

[ljadw]

Hi GLG,

I happen to agree that at that point a highly changeable majority of Austrian public opinion probably favoured Anschluss. However, given that no reliable vote or public opinion poll exists, this is more informed speculation than proven fact, like every other opinion on the subject.

However, the photos are not evidence of this, because they capture only a small minority of the populations of the two cities most are taken in - Vienna (where the crowds ammounted to only about about 17% of the population) and Linz, the town of Hitler's youth (where they reportedly amounted to about 40%). These are, indeed, "minorities". You can do the number crunching yourself, if you wish.

Most are propaganda photos taken to give the impression that Austrian support for Anschluss was really as high as the rigged Nazi plebiscite later claimed. Turnout was claimed to be 99.71% and the pro Anschluss vote 99.73% of that. Do you really believe such figures?

Ask yourself why Hitler found it necessary to mount a military invasion of Austria at short notice if he himself really believed such statistics. The reason was that he feared the plebiscite called by Schussnigg in favour of independence might pass. Sure, Schussnigg's referendum was likely to be considerably rigged, but so was Hitler's own. THE TRUTH IS THAT NOBODY KNOWS THE PRECISE STATE OF AUSTRIAN PUBLIC OPINION AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER PROPERLY TESTED.

Given the weight of Nazi propaganda around these photos, don't you think posters should be informed of the context in which they were taken?

Cheers,

Sid.

The Austrian public opinion was tested :a minority supported the Anschluss openly, the others did NOT protest .
That 99.73 is a big exaggeration ( how big ? ) is meaningless ,it does not mean that there was a big opposition .
That Schussnigg's referendum was likely to be considered as rigged,is a very,very big euphemism .Its result was known before it could start but the opposition against a referendum not about the independence of Austria,but on the continuation of the Austro-fascist regime.was higher, much higher than the possible opposition to a referendum about the Anschluss :the church did not support Schussnigg, neither did the socialists .

[Hans1906]

I think, you are indulging in mutual, and modern "trench warfare" here, that is going nowhere.

My grandfather Hans marched into Austria in 1938 as an officer in the RAD, his only son Helmut ended up as a student of a NPEA in Carinthia in 1945, and only returned to his North German home in 1947 in much too large soldier's clothing.
Half-starved and completely torn down, my grandmother hardly recognized her only son.
The boy was just 14 years young in 1947, a victim of strict National Socialist upbringing.

Lost years of one's youth, formative years, terrible years.
The boy never talked about it, only with his mother.


Hans

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You post, "ALL photos ( on ALL occasions ) show only a minority of the population." True. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

You post, "That does not mean that those who are not on the photos did disagree with those who are on the photos." Also true. However. it is equally does not mean that those who are not in the photos agree with those in the photos or even that all those on the photos were anything more than curious, as reported of some in Linz.

However, the fact that some 83% of Vienna's population chose absence is indicative of something far less than the "overwhelming" support that the photos and subsequent referendum were designed to indicate.

You post, "17 % of the Viennese is enormous." Not in terms of Vienna's total population. It is only about one sixth! It is also far less than the 500,000 reported to have been on the streets for Dolfuss's funeral. (For those unaware, Dolfuss was Schussnigg's predecessor as Austrian Chancellor assassinated by Nazis in 1934).

You post, ".....we may assume that the overwhelming majority of the other 83 % agreed with the 17 % because there are no proofs that they disagreed with them." Wrong. Their absence is evidence enough that the Nazis had a lot less than near unanimous support in Vienna, at least. The fact that only 40% apparently turned out in Linz, the town of Hitler's youth, and that some of them were reported as merely curious or indifferent, must also be counted as disappointing for the Nazi narrative of lock-step, Austrian near unanimity.

You post, ".....the conclusion is that the silent/absent majority agreed, for a lot of different reasons." Nope. The conclusion is that 83% of Viennese were not sufficiently in favour of the Nazi project to be prepared to demonstrate this in public!

You post, "What we know is that 17% of the population participated on pro Anschluss demonstrations and that NO ONE participated on anti Anschluss demonstrations, which means that the silent majority agreed to the Anschluss, which was already a fait accompli." You have just explained why there were almost no anti-Anschluss demonstrations after the German Army entered - "it was already a fait accompli". And yet still only 17% of Viennese were prepared to demonstrate public support for it!

Certainly "Schussnigg's referendum was likely to be considered as rigged.....". However, as it was never conducted we can't know precisely how rigged. However, we know full well how much Hitler's referendum was rigged. I have quoted to you Albert Goering's recollections of its conduct before. Have you forgotten? I can put it up here again, if you wish.

You post, "That 99.73 is a big exaggeration ( how big ? ) is meaningless ,it does not mean that there was a big opposition ." Not meanigless. It demonstrates that the strength of their support was exaggesrated by the Nazis and that we therefore don't know the real strength of opposition to Anschluss. However, the fact that Hitler invaded as soon as Schussnigg announced his own referendum on continued Austrian independence is indicative that he himself did not have full confidence in Austrian support.

You post, "As long as the silent majority does not protest, it supports." That is such a ridiculous proposition that it requires no response! The fact that 99.9% of the membership of AHF have not disagreed with you or I on this subject does not entitle either of us to claim their support.

You post, "Austrian public opinion was tested....." Freely and fairly? It can't be in either Schussnigg's never conducted plebiscite, or Hitler's demonstrably corrupt plebiscite, and there were no public opinion polls at the time. So where was Austrian public opinion freely and fairly tested?

As I posted above, "THE TRUTH IS THAT NOBODY KNOWS THE PRECISE STATE OF AUSTRIAN PUBLIC OPINION AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER PROPERLY TESTED."

For myself, I think it likely that at the moment of Hitler's plebiscite, a clear majority of Austrians were probably genuinely in favour of Anschluss. However, we will never know for a fact, because the Nazis blatantly rigged the results of their own plebiscite to ridiculously implausible levels, thereby discrediting it. They besmirched their own triumph.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

You post, "ALL photos ( on ALL occasions ) show only a minority of the population." True. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

You post, "That does not mean that those who are not on the photos did disagree with those who are on the photos." Also true. However. it is equally does not mean that those who are not in the photos agree with those in the photos or even that all those on the photos were anything more than curious, as reported of some in Linz.

However, the fact that some 83% of Vienna's population chose absence is indicative of something far less than the "overwhelming" support that the photos and subsequent referendum were designed to indicate.

You post, "17 % of the Viennese is enormous." Not in terms of Vienna's total population. It is only about one sixth! It is also far less than the 500,000 reported to have been on the streets for Dolfuss's funeral. (For those unaware, Dolfuss was Schussnigg's predecessor as Austrian Chancellor assassinated by Nazis in 1934).

You post, ".....we may assume that the overwhelming majority of the other 83 % agreed with the 17 % because there are no proofs that they disagreed with them." Wrong. Their absence is evidence enough that the Nazis had a lot less than near unanimous support in Vienna, at least. The fact that only 40% apparently turned out in Linz, the town of Hitler's youth, and that some of them were reported as merely curious or indifferent, must also be counted as disappointing for the Nazi narrative of lock-step, Austrian near unanimity.

You post, ".....the conclusion is that the silent/absent majority agreed, for a lot of different reasons." Nope. The conclusion is that 83% of Viennese were not sufficiently in favour of the Nazi project to be prepared to demonstrate this in public!

You post, "What we know is that 17% of the population participated on pro Anschluss demonstrations and that NO ONE participated on anti Anschluss demonstrations, which means that the silent majority agreed to the Anschluss, which was already a fait accompli." You have just explained why there were almost no anti-Anschluss demonstrations after the German Army entered - "it was already a fait accompli". And yet still only 17% of Viennese were prepared to demonstrate public support for it!

Certainly "Schussnigg's referendum was likely to be considered as rigged.....". However, as it was never conducted we can't know precisely how rigged. However, we know full well how much Hitler's referendum was rigged. I have quoted to you Albert Goering's recollections of its conduct before. Have you forgotten? I can put it up here again, if you wish.

You post, "That 99.73 is a big exaggeration ( how big ? ) is meaningless ,it does not mean that there was a big opposition ." Not meanigless. It demonstrates that the strength of their support was exaggesrated by the Nazis and that we therefore don't know the real strength of opposition to Anschluss. However, the fact that Hitler invaded as soon as Schussnigg announced his own referendum on continued Austrian independence is indicative that he himself did not have full confidence in Austrian support.

You post, "As long as the silent majority does not protest, it supports." That is such a ridiculous proposition that it requires no response! The fact that 99.9% of the membership of AHF have not disagreed with you or I on this subject does not entitle either of us to claim their support.

You post, "Austrian public opinion was tested....." Freely and fairly? It can't be in either Schussnigg's never conducted plebiscite, or Hitler's demonstrably corrupt plebiscite, and there were no public opinion polls at the time. So where was Austrian public opinion freely and fairly tested?

As I posted above, "THE TRUTH IS THAT NOBODY KNOWS THE PRECISE STATE OF AUSTRIAN PUBLIC OPINION AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER PROPERLY TESTED."

For myself, I think it likely that at the moment of Hitler's plebiscite, a clear majority of Austrians were probably genuinely in favour of Anschluss. However, we will never know for a fact, because the Nazis blatantly rigged the results of their own plebiscite to ridiculously implausible levels, thereby discrediting it. They besmirched their own triumph.

Cheers,

Sid.

1 There is no proof that 83 % of the population of Vienna did chose absence : most of them could not be present .Because of health,of work, etc.
2 Everyone admits that those who were not saluting Winston at Buckingham Palace on D Day,agreed with those who saluted him .
3 The 500000 who were reported (!) to be on the streets for the funeral of Dollfuss,were not only inhabitants of RED Vienna, but came also from the provinces . Thus your comparison is not valid. Dollfuss was hated in Vienna .
4 That the Anschluss was a fait accompli is irrelevant : the great majority of the Austrians supported the Anschluss and hated Schussnigg .
5 The Schussnigg referendum was planned to be rigged,as Schussnigg had only the support of less than 10 % of the population and his supporters abandoned him very quickly .
6 You still do not grasp that to vote for the Anschluss and to vote for Hitler were two different things .The opponents of Hitler were supporters of the Anschluss .
7 The Schussnigg regime was on its last days,not weeks, already on the day that Schussnigg told people that he would organize a referendum .
8 Hitler invaded Austria because otherwise there would be a civil war with tens of thousands of victims . It is even very unlikely,or even out of the question that Schussnigg could have organized a referendum .
9 That Hitler's referendum was rigged was not caused by the fear of losing the referendum, but by the fact that a dictator can not organize free elections .
10 The fact that the Soviet population did not oppose the regime meant that they supported the regime .The same for Germany and Austria : free elections would not give a different result of rigged elections .
11 The public opinion in Austria was tested : if 40 % of the electors said no, the Nazis could not send them to Dachau and they could not transform a 60/40 result in a 99 /1 result .
The Austrians could have refused the Anschluss,but did not do it,it was the same for the Russians : they could have voted against the official candidate during the communist domination ,but did not do it .
12 To rig the results was not a mistake ,but a necessity : if the real outcome was 80/20 and the Nazis published this result, outside Germany the media would say that 20 % of the population was hostile to the regime and these 20 % would demand a liberalization of the regime .
No one knew the real result,the Nazis only knew that it was less than 99 % for the Anschluss, but as long as no one knew it,there was no problem .
13 99 % was an exaggeration, but as no one knew the real result, there was no problem .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You post, "1 There is no proof that 83 % of the population of Vienna did chose absence : most of them could not be present .Because of health,of work, etc." There is no proof of this. However, there is evidence that 83% were absent and that far more might have turned out - in Linz, where 40% was claimed!

You post, "2 Everyone admits that those who were not saluting Winston at Buckingham Palace on D Day, agreed with those who saluted him." You are thinking of VE Day on 8 May 1945. Churchill was voted out of office two months later in a landslide!

You post, "3 The 500000 who were reported (!) to be on the streets for the funeral of Dollfuss,were not only inhabitants of RED Vienna, but came also from the provinces . Thus your comparison is not valid. Dollfuss was hated in Vienna ." And yet 500,000 people still reportedly attended the funeral of "hated" Dolfuss, whose forces successfully suppressed a Nazi coup in 1934, while far fewer are reported (!) to have attended the arrival of the reportedly (!) overwhelmingly popular Hitler! Go figure!

You post, "4 That the Anschluss was a fait accompli is irrelevant". Well why did you mention it then? In fact, that it was a "fait accompli" is absolutely central, because before it Schussnigg looked likely to win his rigged plebiscite, whereas only after it was Hitler able to conduct his own rigged plebiscite.

You post, "the great majority of the Austrians supported the Anschluss and hated Schussnigg." There is no proof, as you would say, because THE TRUTH IS THAT NOBODY KNOWS THE PRECISE STATE OF AUSTRIAN PUBLIC OPINION AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER PROPERLY TESTED.

You post, "5 The Schussnigg referendum was planned to be rigged,as Schussnigg had only the support of less than 10 % of the population and his supporters abandoned him very quickly ." Hitler's referendum was also "planned to be rigged".

There is no proof that "Schussnigg had only the support of less than 10 % of the population" for reasons already stated. However, the mere fact that you now claim he had support some 40 times bigger than Hitler's rigged referendum implied is indicative of just how flawed Hitler's plebiscite was. Thank you for highlighting this!

You post, "6 You still do not grasp that to vote for the Anschluss and to vote for Hitler were two different things .The opponents of Hitler were supporters of the Anschluss ." There is no proof of this. However, there is evidence that some were. Whether they were supporters of Anschluss with Hitler's particular version of Germany is another matter and might help explain why he so outrageously rigged his own refrendum. In any event, they never had the oppportunity to demonstrate this either way in a free and fair poll.

You post, "7 The Schussnigg regime was on its last days,not weeks, already on the day that Schussnigg told people that he would organize a referendum ." Yup, because Hitler was determined to overthrow Schussnigg. Schussnigg's plebiscite was designed to pre-empt this by appearing to consult the Austrian people on the subject of independence. Hitler could not allow this and invaded with his army to prevent it.

You post, "8 Hitler invaded Austria because otherwise there would be a civil war with tens of thousands of victims." Well, if so, that rather drives a coach and horses through the proposition that Schussnigg lacked significant support, don't you think?

You post, "It is..... even out of the question that Schussnigg could have organized a referendum." Not at all. The ballots were already printed. You have already been shown one. This is what worried Hitler and led him to invade. He couldn't risk an apparent popular consultation he did not himself control.

You post, "9 That Hitler's referendum was rigged was not caused by the fear of losing the referendum....." Nobody claimed otherwise. Hitler was probably worried that support below the 90% achieved in the League of Nations plebiscite in the Saarland would indicate the momentum of the Nazi project was slowing, so he felt he had to rig it.

You post, ".....but by the fact that a dictator can not organize free elections." Precisely! So we are agreed that Hitler's plebiscite was not "free".

You post, "10 The fact that the Soviet population did not oppose the regime meant that they supported the regime .The same for Germany and Austria." Or that they had no opportunity to express that in free and fair votes, and you have already said ".....a dictator cannot organise free elections." Thank you again for reinforcing my point!

You post, "free elections would not give a different result of rigged elections". There is no proof of this, unless, of course, free and fair votes are actually held to test this hypothesis. And, as you have pointed out, ".....a dictator cannot organise free elections".

You post, "11 The public opinion in Austria was tested : if 40 % of the electors said no, the Nazis could not send them to Dachau and they could not transform a 60/40 result in a 99 /1 result ." There is no proof of this. Besides, you seem to believe that even though you claim Schussnigg had only 10% support, he could have rigged his plebiscite to produce a win. If Schussnigg could do it, why on earth could Hitler have not done the same with far greater powers, including the threat of Dachau, which Schussnigg did not have?

You post, "The Austrians could have refused the Anschluss....." How, when it was already, to use your words, "a fait accompli"?

You post, ".....they could have voted against the official candidate during the communist domination ,but did not do it." We don't know that they didn't because, again in your own words, ".....a dictator cannot organise free elections." Who, therefore, knows how thay actually voted, let alone what they actually thought?

You post, "12 To rig the results was not a mistake ,but a necessity :" Thank you yet again for emphasizing that Hitler's plebiscite was rigged and not a free and fair test of Austrian public opinion.

You post, "if the real outcome was 80/20 and the Nazis published this result, outside Germany the media would say that 20 % of the population was hostile to the regime and these 20 % would demand a liberalization of the regime." This is a hypothetical of which there is no proof.

You post, "No one knew the real result, the Nazis only knew that it was less than 99 % for the Anschluss, but as long as no one knew it,there was no problem ." There is a problem if one wants to use it as evidence of the real state of Austrian public opinion!

You post, "13 99 % was an exaggeration, but as no one knew the real result, there was no problem ". There is a problem for anyone claiming Hitler's Anschluss referendum as evidence of "overwhelming" support of anything.

Any way, your agreement that, "no one knew the real result" is good enough for my purposes. It is what I have been saying all along.

Sadly, the content of Tigre's photos, while interesting in its own right, makes it impossible to entirely divorce them from their "ideological / political" context.

Cheers,

Sid