Talk:Red Army Faction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is a part of the WikiProject on Terrorism, which aims to provide detailed accounts of the individuals who have engaged in terrorism, shaping the world irrevocably over the past thirty years. If this interests you, you are invited to look over, or join our efforts

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red Army Faction article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

An event mentioned in this article is an October 18 selected anniversary.

Contents

[edit] POV!

Remember that when your posting things!

-G

[edit] Motives

The article should say something about the group's motives and aims; or, if the group had no clear aims, this should be clearly stated. At the moment the article gives some basic facts and timeline about what happened, but it's impossible to infer why the people may have behaved as they did -- surely the more important thing for the article to tackle.

Assuming there are competing theories about why the RAF emerged in Germany while similar movements did not emerge in other European countries, these should be summarised.

I know nothing about the group's motivation myself, merely came to the article as a reader. I could attempt to research this but if anyone else already knows some of this it might be quicker! Alex

[edit] Entebbe

I came to this RAF page from the page for Operation Entebbe. There they mention two RAF members being a part of the hijjacking, but that isn't mentioned at all in this article. Is it a false statement in the Enetebbe article or an omission here (perhaps a partial truth involving fragile associations between the participating hijjackers and the actual RAF?) If anyone knows it would be great to have that cleared up. Jeremyclarke 03:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faction Or Fraction?

Note: several originally separate entries were compounded in this section by Maikel 21:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

Is it Faction or Fraction? I'm still confused. The text seems to say "Faction" is an incorrect translation of the name, but yet the article is still named "Faction". Either the article should be moved to Red Army Fra(c/k)tion, and the page spelled "Faction" should redirect to it, or the text should be made more clear. Mrzaius 05:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Red Army Fraction", the correct translation from the German? --Charles Stewart 16:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the original German name it's fraction, but despite the terms faction and fraction being far from synonymous, the lemma in the Encyclopedia Britannica – to cite an authoritative source – is also the erroneous Red Army Faction – however, the respective article notes: "also called Red Army Fraction". My take is that the English translation Red Army Faction may be time-honoured, but is still false, and I propose moving this article to Red Army Fraction (currently a redirect to Red Army Faction). Maikel 21:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:History of Germany: In the Germany since 1945 section, there is a link to the article Red Army Faction, but that is just a redirect to Red Army Fraction. Should this be changed to make people less confused? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here? -iten

The English article says that the correct translation should be "fraction" but I'm not too sure about that translation, so see this English-German language forum for a discussion (just begun) Saintswithin 12:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was always the "Red Army Faction" in the English-language press way back when. "Google proves nothing," of course, but here's a Googlefight. –Hajor 00:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a de-wikified Googlefight without articles using this Wikipedia text. The discussion on Leo also seems to be heading towards "faction", but I'd give it a bit longer before changing this article Saintswithin 06:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to Faction as the result of the discussion suggested. Here's a summary:

So, the argument for faction goes:
  • faction is the usual translation, either because of a mistake, or perhaps because fraction isn't commonly known in English, but that some people also use fraction. Fraktion is actually translated as faction in reputable dictionaries, so in fact calling it a mistake is a bit unfair.
  • The English faction doesn't seem to immediately bring to mind a militant group, unlike in German.
  • The English fraction appears in all but the biggest dictionaries only as a mathematical term, so it's relatively rare, and it seems mostly restricted to socialist/communist parties. In German however, Fraktion is commonly used, for a parliamentary subgroup.
The argument for fraction goes:
  • The English word fraction exists with nearly the same meaning as in German, and it meant just about the same thing in the past, even if it isn't used so often or in quite the same way today.
  • The English word faction could make it sound like they are greedy, clamorous, and reckless of the common good, as wikipedia suggests, whereas G. Fraktion is only neutral.

I hope that's cleared up the confusion. Saintswithin 21:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter what the literal tanslation is. Wikipedia:Naming conventions says:
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
The "Common English Name" is "Red Army Faction". Anyone who saw "Fraction" would assume that they were reading the " Grauniad" (See Private Eye). BTW the British press not usually us the initials RAF because 99% of the population would wonder why two Germans criminals called Baader and Meinhof had been in the Royal Air Force. Philip Baird Shearer 08:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

hello all. the differences between faction and fraction have little to do with the terms being lost in translation, and more to do with their actual meaning. fraction is a soviet inspired term that implies a highly organized unit, which is the exact reason why the red army uses it. faction implies a droid like unit that isnt capable of being organized or making decisions, rather implimenting them, also a marxist denounciation of the term - again, the reason why the red army does not use it. it is an insult to label them as faction. in light of this, which seems to not have been noticed by people on the discussion board, i will change the title in the intro.

i wasnt able to change the title, tried changing the redirect but couldnt. im wikichallenged so i ask that registered users or anyone who knows their way around this thing kindly change the title.

1) The name of the terrorist organization is the Red Army Faction. That is what it is called in English, that is what the article should be titled, that is what instances of the name in the English-language article should read. However, in Germany, it is called the Rote Armee Fraktion, and NOT the Rote Armee Faktion, despite that the most common translation English->German is faction->Faktion. The reasoning for this is perfectly and correctly illustrated in "Origins of the name".

2) Baader-Meinhof Gang ≠ Rote Armee Fraktion. "Baader-Meinhof Gang" refers exclusively to the gang consisting of Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof, Jan-Karl Raspe, and Irmgard Moeller, and their compatriots, or the first generation of the RAF. (In German, by the way, they are the Baader-Meinhof Gruppe, or group.) The second and third generations of the RAF are separate entities from the BMG.

- Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica notes that the group is "also called Red Army Fraction", so I have added this to the article. Maikel 15:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Rewrote the page. I have used the detailed data at http://www.rafinfo.de as a source, but the site looks somewhat dubious – at least leftist-leaning – to me. Some fact-checking might still be in order.

Also, I removed this paragraph:

The group is mostly known under the name Baader-Meinhof Gang, but this name is misleading, for, although Andreas Baader was one of the leaders of the group, Ulrike Meinhof was not. She was not second-in-command and she was not Baader's lover, as some think. Gudrun Ensslin was the second-in-command (and Baader's lover, by the way), but it is believed she was actually the brains behind the whole group.

Meinhof didn't have to be Baader's lover to be the intellectual leader. The name is not misleading and was in common use in Germany. djmutex 20:16 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"and killing dozens of high-profile Germans in its more than 20 years of existence. "

This seems to be an exaggeration. Should be more like "a dozen of high-profile people and another dozen of bystanders"

81.164.253.130 17:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Meinhof isn't Baader's lover, AND isn't the intellectual leader! She was just a journalist who helped escape him the 14/05/1970 in Berlin. She isn't even a "high officer" in the RAF/Baader-Meinhof Grüppe. It was the media that give the first RAF generation the name of BMG, because Ulrike Meinhof was a well known journaliste!


If there are no any other arguments for removing the paragraph:

The group is mostly known under the name Baader-Meinhof Gang, but this name is misleading, for, although Andreas Baader was one of the leaders of the group, Ulrike Meinhof was not. She was not second-in-command and she was not Baader's lover, as some think. Gudrun Ensslin was the second-in-command (and Baader's lover, by the way), but it is believed she was actually the brains behind the whole group.

i will add this paragraph, a little adjusted to the text! because it is a common mistake that Ulrike Meinhof was one of the leaders! (and she isn't)

[edit] Another Rewrite

I changed some details in the last part. Weiterstadt was not a secret service action but really done by the RAF - the secret service bombing of a prison was in Celle (it's called the "Celler Loch"). Also Klaus Steinmetz wasn't a terrorist but a secret service agent.

[edit] Red Faction (Game)

Anybody know if the parallels to the game Red Faction are coincidence or not?

It's clearly not coincidence, yet the editors of this article don't seem to be able to see it Killridemedly 06:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

While I do not know much about this group, and I don't mind calling it a terrorist group in the introduction or whatever, I think the word "terrorist" is a little overused in the rest of the text. Phrases like "More people died when the explosives deployed by the terrorists were triggered later that night." are a little strange.

Referring to individuals as "the terrorists", "the other terrorists" kinda seems sloppy and a little POV to me. Maybe we could throw a little diversity into the adjectives to avoid seeming like bush-bots? :P --Che y Marijuana 10:18, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

That's right. Lumping every Gen 2 RAF soldier, USA mercenary, Palestinian ambulance driver, Guantanomo bay inmate, freedom fighter and political dissident under one label is old hat. And besides, even under the correct definition of "terrorist", there were three seperate generations of RAF, each one with their own questionable actions. Department stores, Axel Springer press offices, banks and privatization officials are targets only under some abstract notion of the lethal nature of poverty, but the first generation's targets also concentrated on "arson attacks against U.S. military facilities,” generally considered imperialist and overly aggressive terrorists themselves, “ [and] German police stations," whose “tactics of the period are nowadays mostly viewed as generally overly aggressive”. So they sometimes attacked just anybody, but to say that they attacked just anybody [all the time] would be incorrect. FET 22:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no "correct" international definition of terrorism, it's used differently and variously by people and governments, normally to describe people they don't like. Armed group is the neutral term. --Donnacha 11:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Media

Two people, named Andreas Ammer and F.M. Einheit (from Einstürzenede Neubauten), released a conceptual album under the name "Ammer Einheit" with samples from three infamous periods of German history: Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, and Ulrike Meinhof (from the trial). Note that "Einheit" means "Unity" ("единство") by itself--but the artist FM Einheit has been releasing music under that name since at least 1980. I think it is interesting that a German group (oder gruppe!) put her in with the others, that it says something about the attitudes toward each historical figure/period, because that's what their album "Deutsche Krieger" was more about - not which Person/Krieg was necessarily worse than the other (it's a kinda of a moot point). And about the Cyrillic origin of the word Fraktion, that would be фракция? First by Khirad 19:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC) corrected by Dando C, 03 November 2005.

[edit] Suicide

The English language article suggests it's a conspiracy theory to think it's suicide:

The official inquiry concluded that this was a collective suicide, but again conspiracy theories abounded.

However, the German language article writes:

Am 9. Mai 1976 gaben die Behörden den Selbstmord Ulrike Meinhofs bekannt. Zahlreiche Widersprüche und Ungereimtheiten in der offiziellen Darstellung ihres Todes führten unter anderem zur Bildung einer Internationalen Untersuchungskommission. Diese dokumentiert zahlreiche Zweifel an der von den Behörden veröffentlichten Version: „Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchungen legen den Schluss nahe, daß Ulrike Meinhof tot war, als man sie aufhängte, und daß es beunruhigende Indizien gibt, die auf das Eingreifen eines Dritten im Zusammenhang mit diesem Tod hinweisen.“

This sounds very different, and is much closer to what I learned at school. I think the English language article needs to be rewritten - it's much more than a conspiracy theory to doubt the official version. The same is true on today's frontpage. I might fix this job myself (the former, I can't do the latter) but if not at least I have stated the problem here. Gerrit CUTEDH 13:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Events timeline

May 24, 1967: "leaflets at Berlin's Free University which jokingly imply that one way to bring a Marxist Revolution to fruition in West Germany is by deliberately burning down department stores and other business buildings in West Germany." The leaflets actually were part of the protests against the Vietnam War and said, that burning down department stores would bring "that crackling vietnam-feeling (being there and burning along)" to european consumers.

[edit] Some more changes

I really enjoyed reading this article (just watched a movie last night about Operation Thunderbolt) and made some changes. When I got down to where someone had asked "Who is Heins??" - I'll do some sourcing and then see if I can patch it, because there's a jump between the RAF beginnings and when Mein and others join the group in the early 1970s.

I removed this ...(West German police tactics of the period are viewed in contemporary times as generally overly aggressive) because it's on the edge of POV ... viewed in contemporary times by who? It also breaks flow in writing. Of course, this comment might be very evident or accepted as fact in modern German society, but most of the readers will be outside Germany. The comment need sourcing about the claim - such as a mainstream leader of the 1960s saying today, "Well, we were overtly aggressive and learned from it."

... Rudi Dutschke, the intellectual leader of the student protests ... I'm thinking of how to best clarify this, because "intellectual" can and is primarily used as an descriptive adjective, such as "smart", funny or bold: George W. Bush is an anti-intellectual leader. The Wikipedia definition uses it mostly as a noun, completely ignoring the adjective usage, but many readers may be left with the impression that Dutschke was a leader who was also smart, rather than the Noam Chomsky of his time.

"The students" is also used a lot here; but this borders POV; did every single student in all of Germany support the New Left? Noirdame 18:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insurgents Or Terrorists?

I have replaced insurgent with terrorism in the description of RAF as I consider the former to be NPOV and euphemistic of their actions. Maikel 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you may think, "terrorist" is on the list of words to avoid in Wikipedia, at least wituhout specific qualification. Try to limit its use to people specifically tried and sentenced on charges of terrorism (which is far from being the case of all RAF members). Taragüí @ 09:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for being cautious with labels such as "terrorists"—one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and all that—but describing the RAF as insurgents just doesn't hit the spot. Insurgents against what? A democratically elected government? Also their self-ascribed status as urban guerillas is cited immediately afterwards so as to provide a balanced view.
The RAF as a group was limited in numbers—only those who had gone underground were considered members, others were merely sympathizers—and strictly dedicated to violent action. And even among comparable groups of the era, the RAF was remarkable in its unmitigated advocacy of violence.
So I think that, in the case of RAF, the use of the terrorism-label is justified in an almost unique way. Labelling them as insurgents would amount to bowdlerisation.
BTW, why did you revert the statement "The RAF is responsible for 34 deaths -- high-profile targets along many secondary targets such as chauffeurs, bodyguards and ordinary soldiers -- and many more injured in its almost 30 years of existence" to "The RAF killed dozens of high-profile Germans in its more than 20 years of existence"? Maikel 20:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
"Insurgent against a military-backed government instated by a foreign power" may very well be the definition used by the FRA members themselves; the Bundesrepublik Deutschland was, after all, the result of treaties signed under military occupation by Allied forces. And, in any case, insurgence against any kind of government is possible.
By stating "insurgence" as a self-ascribed status, while describing them as "terrorists" in the impersonal, allegedly objective encylopedia's voice, you're violating the NPOV policiy. Moreover, as I have indicated before, the official style guide on words to avoid specifically states that impersonally labelling a person or organisation as "terrorist" is not acceptable, noting that the words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist.' You're welcome to provide it, but meanwhile, please abide by the style guides.
I have reverted again the bit about secondary targets; it is clearly biased against them, highlighting what current parlance euphemistically calls "collateral damage" in an effort to discredit their actions. Unwanted or secodnary killings should be documented in the proper section in the article, but they were neither the main goal nor the main effect of the FRA's actions, and are out of place in the highly visible lead section. Taragüí @ 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Do tell what FRA is supposed to mean? Maikel 19:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
My bad. I inadvertently used my native Spanish acronym; it should be RAF, of course. Taragüí @ 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Glad that we at least we agree on one point ... but back to the main subject:
  • Encyclopedia Britannica: "radical leftist group" that "engaged in terrorist bombings"
  • German Encarta: "left-wing extremist terrorist group", "saw itself as part of international terrorism"
  • http://www.wissen.de: "terror group"
  • Brockhaus: "left-wing extremist terror group"
  • Süddeutsche Zeitung, Aktuelles Lexikon: "terror group"
  • Meyers Großes Universallexikon treats the RAF exclusively in its chapter about terrorism: "in the FR Germany terrorism ... manifested itself as the Red Army Fraction"
  • Bertelsmann Große Lexikothek: "group which followed the concept of urban guerilla and urged for armed resistance against the 'violence of the ruling classes'", "terrorists", "terrorist activities"
So why should Wikipedia not refer to the RAF as terrorists when every other encyclopedia that I got hold of does? Maikel 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Altered. Maikel 19:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but targetting the repressive police authorities and illegal US occupation thugs who strive to preserve the tortorous status quo does not qualify as terrorism. The use of the term terrorist is a fundamental violation of NPOV. They shall be called a militant group. The opening paragraphs contains specifies that the RAF was tied to legitimate liberation organizations such as the IRA and PLO. It is inconsitent to call a group terrorist but then not to call groups with which it has contact with like IRA terrorist. Jacob Peters

[edit] Early 70s and early 80s

You should write more about the group's activities in the early '70s and early 80s. The way the article is now it seems that these were years without events. This is of course not true. The 1970-1972 period was filled with ultra-violent bankrobberies across West Germany, with several deaths. This was done to get money to buy guns and explosives on the black market via Italy and Lebanon. The early 80s was also full of dramatic events. In 1981? they shot down a high ranking Bundeswehr (that's the West German army) officer pretending to be package-delivering postal workers. The event is immortalised by the english goth group Bauhaus. They released a song called "Terror Couple Kill Colonel" in 1982. Several bomb attacks was also done in the early 80s. -Bjarnulf

[edit] Jimbo Wales highly recommended ...

Jimbo Wales highly recommended to delete the article about the SPK and all links to the Wikipedia-project terrorism. See our recent Boston meeting, see the juridical proceedings of SPK against Wikipedia.

I made no recommendation about this article. The anon ip number should be ignored.--Jimbo Wales 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a Terrorist Group

I'm sorry, but attacking the armed and repressive police officers and USA occpuying forces does not amount to terrorism. Police officers and soldiers are killed all the time because they are expected to. The actions of the Red Army Faction were in no circumstance directed towards the working masses of Germany. The targetting of oppressive state and capitalist tyrants does not constitute terrorism because these people are part of the ruling class and therefore opposition to them will be natural. For a manifestation of terrorism, refer to the massacre of school children committed by Chechen terrorists. The absence of any major civilian casualities brought by Red Army Faction disqualifies it as a terrorist group. Jacob Peters

  • Seems to me that the majority of the casualties of the Red Army Faction were civilians, not police officers, not soliers. Who care if the terrorist target was not the "working masses"? "Opposition to them will be natural" -- sure, but that doesnt say it's not terrorism. Reverted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

of course they were a terrorist group. there is no doubt that in germany the mainstream considers the raf a terrorist group. only a tiny radical left fringe would argue that.trueblood 18:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we split the difference? How about "... a militant group commonly considered a terrorist organization ..."? - Che Nuevara 02:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Or how about ' ... a militant group considered by many to be a terrorist organisation ...'? Somearemoreequal 13:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


“ One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. ”
The term "terrorist" is a hotly debated issue, however, if you stick to pure meaning, anyone who tries to express their views by means of terrorizing the public is a terrorist. Please consider this definition when determining whether the RAF was a terrorist group. As for my personal opinion, I believe they were a terrorist group because their targets were no exclusive to government officials and police officers. They did support the highjack of Lufthansa Flight 181, who carried innocent civilians. P.S. Try and guess where the quote comes from. ;-) - Mtmelendez 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] list of members

i deleted the passage about the list of members: because, it is superfluous since there already is a sub article apart from that it only contains muddled language (nearly 100 Germans joined terrorist organisations in the fight against capitalism) and facts.trueblood 19:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] their ideology?

As a reader of the article, I still don't understand what values and ideologies they were fighting for. They obviously had some sort of cause and something they strongly believed in... Can we explain their ideology, values, causes, etc. so I can understand what they're all about?--Sonjaaa 18:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

One motivating factor was protest against the NAZI regime which most of the older generation had supported and which was still strongly represented in contemporary German government and politics. Essentially up to that time Germany's WWII history had not been annalised on the local level and many German families lied about their NS past. That was the situation many of the first and second generation RAF members had grown up in, once they realised how little had actually changed since 1945 they sought ways to remedy the situation. This then lead to increasing radicalisation, particularly after the repressive measures taken to combat the Baader-Meinhof group. At one point, iirc, the RAF had about 20% popular support which should not be forgotten. They were the radical (and often misguided) spearhead of a whole generation. In broad terms they are usually considered Communists or Socialists though Anarchists (in a positive sense) would be more appropriate as their ways were rather different from the more organised radical left (though even that was criminalised in Germany). To date no truly neutral annalysis of the motivations and ideology of the RAF has been published (a controversial psychological analysis exists though I only read exerps, it's anything but neutral).--Caranorn 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

very interesting stuff Caranorn! I found the link to German Guerrilla dot com English Translations of the RAF's public statements to be quite enough. However, much of it is tiresome to read, so someone would be doing a great service in writing a summary. I might attempt it when I'm feeling utterly bored of life. (The actions of these kind of people are generally far more interesting than what they claimed to be fighting for... Hasslehoof 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

really, caranorm, the raf were no anarchist but communists, they were not the spearhead of a whole generation, clearly you don't know what you are talking about. have a look a one of their strategy papers and you see how remote they were in weird closed-off ideological world. and what do you mean by the organised radical left that was criminalized. besides the raf was not criminalized by anybody, at least not from a certain point onwards, they were criminals, they killed people, robbed banks, stole cars hence they were criminals.trueblood 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
"Wir sagen natürlich, die Bullen sind Schweine. Wir sagen, der Typ in Uniform ist ein Schwein, kein Mensch. Und so haben wir uns mit ihnen auseinander zu setzen. Das heißt, wir haben nicht mit ihm zu reden, und es ist falsch, überhaupt mit diesen Leuten zu reden. Und natürlich kann geschossen werde" Ulrike Meinhoff
you understand german ,don't you? so much for anarchist in a positive way...trueblood 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand german, that very statement confirms how their ideology was closer to that of anarchists then that of communists (except for the shooting part I've heard that exact statement quite often from anarchist friends). As to the spearhead, they formed out of a movement very popular at the time. They themselves had substantial suport from the extreme but also moderate left. Concerning criminalisation, what do you think interdiction of a political party is? For the rest, I know perfectly what I'm talking about, I studied political sciences with emphasis on radicalism, for a time I considered writting a history of the RAF (a few years ago as I thought I was witnessing a repetition of history), though I left it at the idea as I could not find the needed support around me for that kind of project.
Concerning criminals that's simply your POV, I could say the same about those they fought yet it would be no more then a POV. Reality is much more complex then that.--Caranorn 13:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
concerning criminals, a criminal in my book is someone who breaks the law. the would be the mainstream view at least. i don't want to put this word in the article, but there's just been an article in der spiegel, commenting on brigitte mohnhaupt possibly being set free and hence being treated as any common criminal who can be set free after spending 25 years in prison.

calling the state or the police criminal that really is pov, although i agree that the german state move in direction of becoming a police state in reaction to the raf, which is what alienated the raf from the political left in germany. i would not know which party you are refering to, the communist party was already outlawed in the fifties. a lot went wrong in those days but it was as much the fault of the raf as of the state. a history of the raf already exists, der baader meinhof complex by stefan aust. trueblood 13:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landshut Hijacking?

What does the hijacking have to do with the RAF? In the article on it, it says the RAF encouraged the Palestinians? --AW 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? --AW 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I can only confirm that there was a link, but don't recall exactly which one. Possibly they used the same training camps in Syria, though that could have been at a later date. There definitelly were close ties between the RAF and other radical movements, including some Palestinian ones. While I wasn't born at the time, yet studied history and political science, this has not been much of a topic for me the past decade so I can no longer entirely trust my memory on these issues.--Caranorn 12:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I should have read the Landshut article before replying. It becomes quite apparent there.--Caranorn 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] terrorist again

can we come to an agreement about what to call the raf, now the article calls it on of the most active left wing groups, which it clearly was not. i don't see the merits of an edit war, it is clear to everybody that the german public, the gouvernment, the media, then and now saw and sees the raf as a terrorist group. this should be reflected in the article even if the article does not call it directly a terrorist group. is there any controversity about this?trueblood 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a terrorist group! The problem is not with this definition of the RAF, the problem is with today's (since 9/11) of terrorism. The intention of most of the RAF's actions was to create terror, either among the general population, or withing a certain class of people. That terror in turn was supposed to lead to counter terror (well it worked and led to exactly that) by the state which in turn would bring the people together in a revolution which would eventually abolish that state built on NAZI, capitalist and imperialist ideals. So the RAF was from thet start (or almost from the start) built around a theory of terror.
Concerning most active left wing group I'd agree that that is not correct. Maybe most notorious. On the other hand, the RAF was part of a lose network of the extreme and to a lesser degree moderate left.--Caranorn 13:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Axel Springer and co

I've put in that he was a 'vehemently right-wing capitalist'. You can take it as an outlining the left position. He was implacably opposed to the demonstrators et al so even on its own its probably not POV. -- maxrspct ping me 15:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

um i deleted and reverted most of your changes because they did not seem encyclopedian. vehemently right-wing capitalist is just a good example. no offense intended though.trueblood 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I think you just have a hatred for left-wing groups. maxrspct ping me 18:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

just because i don't agree with you don't have me in your box for reactionary assholes. i don't have hatred for leftwing groups, not even for the raf, although i think a share satre's assesment of baader, i think he was a stupid asshole.
no reason to resurrect the see also section, since everything already is the in fiction and art section except mahler and he is wikilinked in the article. trueblood 19:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On your opinion I rest my case. Please don't revert and edit POV. See also sections are the mainstay of wikipedia. Fiction and art are what they are. --maxrspct ping me 19:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

but everything in the see also section fits perfectly into the in fiction and art section except mahler, subsubjects that are already wikilinked in the main article don't need a mention in a see also section.
as for pov, funny that you say that, but for instance vehemently right-wing capitalist, is your pov, i even agree with it, but springer would have seen himself as a defender of democracy. you cannot put it like that in an encyclopedia. trueblood 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


I changed it to ardent. He might be considered a 'defender of democracy' by some.. but that is a POV label ..not a description of his political persuasions. maxrspct ping me 19:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] recent additions

from the article: Industrialised nations in late 1960s experienced massive social upheavals stemming from dissatisfaction among both workers and students. Newly-found youth identity and issues such as racism, women's liberation and anti-imperialism were at the forefront of radical politics. The Communist Party of Germany had been outlawed since 1956. Elected and unelected government positions down to the local level were often occupied by ex-Nazis. There was anger at post-war denazification, seen by some as ineffective. The conservative media was considered biased by the radicals as they were owned and controlled by ardent right-wing capitalists such Axel Springer, who was implacably opposed to student radicalism

i am unhappy with this part, because it is and sounds leftleaning, not objective as a encyclopedia should. and there are a couple of things that don't have much to do with the raf,

  • the communist party was outlawed ten years before the raf was formed, when most of it's founders were still in elementary school.
  • why talk about women's lib or racism, those were not raf subjects, the raf was very much a child of it's time as it was a very macho enterprise
  • the thing about ex-nazis is true but should come with a reference
  • this thing about workers and students having something in common, the lefty dream, the raf was formed entirely of students and had no appeal whatsoever to workers, even when then kidnapped schleyer, who was not very much beloved by organized workers at least, they botched it. we should probably quote some raf strategy papers to make clear for people how much they were on their own planet.
  • ardent right wing capitalist is not a term that belongs here, it does not sound objective, and would probably be controversial

trueblood 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)



I have changed a lot of what i wrote. My answers to your points-

  • Communist party was the main radical left grouping and was out lawed. The illegality had impact thoughout its duration - it wasn't an empty announcement.
  • We are talking about the background the the RAF, its influences and it's predecessor groups. And no.. the RAF was actually part-led by women .. similarly the other groups such as Red Zora and June2nd Movement
  • I will get another reference if required for the nazis in jobs.
  • Workers and students acted together on many instances in the 60s. e.g May 1968. Not a lefty fantasy but a rightist's nightmare.
  • The word ardent just means strong in belief.

maxrspct ping me 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ardent only means strong belief

guess it was not the ardent but the right wing capitalist part that i don't like, springer is covered a little bit further down, anyway.

also what disturbed me that you rewrite things to put in a more leftwing drive and at the same time do little changes which seems like white wash to me, changing violent protest into lively protest, replaces murder with dead... trueblood 08:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

workers and students might protested together in the sixties but not in germany, to me the whole raf story was more a leftis than a rightist nightmare, rudi dutschke talked about the "raf-scheisse" in his diary.trueblood 08:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bogus attack

the list now contains an entry that i think is bogus, the new ref as far as i could see does not mention this particular attack although it has a chapter that discusses the terrorist threat in the 70s. the german article does not mention it, nothing can be found at google, the think the raf did not attack anything nuclear ever. if there casualties on the raf side it should be easy to find the names. please supply some other ref or i delete it again.trueblood 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean you've read the entire book cited as the reference? I note that http://www.usfava.com/USAREUR/Histories/Weapons%20Depot%20Chapter.pdf which is currently cited as another reference, does mention the RAF gaining access and security information about a nuclear site, but not about ever attacking it. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
seems like i stand corrected. one of the new references says: The West German Baader-Meinhof Gang, a radical leftist organization also known as the Red Army Faction, bombed the US Army European Command’s headquarters in Heidelberg in 1972, killing two American soldiers. In January 1977, it attacked a US military base in Giessen, reportedly in an attempt to seize tactical nuclear weapons. 31 US officials sought to protect tactical nuclear weapons through site consolidation and heightened security measures. although now casualties are mentioned. the reference that is given in this article is the same as the first one that appeared in the article, the book by to brothers, forgot the nametrueblood 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The original reference is "One Point Safe", a non-fiction book by Leslie and Andrew Cockburn about nuclear arms proliferation during the fall of the Soviet Union. The Cockburns are a married pair of U.S. investigative journalists. They are fairly well known and a google search on them reveals they have written other published books on arms control. The first chapter of "One Point Safe" describes an attack by the RAF on Giessen and a firefight at the nuclear weapons armory (I have the book). The Cockburns cite as their source a direct interview with General William F. Burns, who commanded the base at the time and is now a retired Major General. A google search on Major General Burns indicates he has held significant arms control positions and written about non-proliferation. His biography, cited at http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/010788a.htm, indicates that he did command the 42d Field Artillery Group in Germany at the time of the attack.
Some form of attack was documented at the time; "One Point Safe" cites the International Herald Tribune, January 6, 1977, p.3, "Saboteurs Blow Up U.S. Army Gasoline Tank". I could not find the International Herald Tribune article online, but it appears to be a UPI wire article also published in The Valley News, January 6, 1977, which I did verity. The original newspaper article does not identify who the attackers were, and refers only to an attack on a "gasoline tank" (General Burns indicates in "One Point Safe" that the story was downplayed).
The version of the attack cited in "One Point Safe" is then later cited in the Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law reference ("Averting Armageddon: Preventing Nuclear Terrorism in the United States", referenced above and on the page) and also in an arms control book by the Henry L. Stimson Center, "Escalation Control and the Nuclear Option in South Asia", available online here: http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=191 (see Chapter 6: Are Tactical Nuclear Weapons Needed in South Asia?).
The study "Future Trends in Terrorism" by the Federal Research Division of the United States' Library of Congress, available at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Future_trends.pdf, contains a reference to an article "No Points Safe" by William Arkin in the January/February 1998 edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. This reference claims that Arkin disputes the account, claiming that a RAF spinoff group did attack the base but did not attack the nuclear weapons depot. The Arkin article can be purchased or read through free trial here: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-54574539.html
One point to clarify: the "One Point Safe" account of the firefight claims that (at least) four of the attackers went down and were dragged away by their comrades during the firefight, but it does not say they died. 12.172.207.3 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/d/Talk%7ERed_Army_Faction_8787.html"