Talk:Wolfgang Grams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Contents

[edit] What did he do?

This article is not particularly clear on why he was a hunted man since 1987. Was it just because he was associated with the RAF? Or was there evidence he was a key member or involved with the planning (or even commission) of crimes? Nil Einne 16:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

This article needs better referencing. Specifically, the eyewitness account and the claim it's been officially concluded he did not commit suicide. While this seems likely given that there appears to have been a cover up and resignations, we still need proper references Nil Einne 16:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well i dont want to speak about the eyewitnesses (of which one is anonymous and one hid herself in a locker) but no offical has EVER stated something different from that he commited suicide. Just the opposite: Every report states that he did just that (except a sentence by a minor court who stated that they had no idea or evidence of anything, so they could not decide)

[edit] shooting of Newrzella

As far as I recall there are serious problems with the theory that Grams shot the GSG9 member. The fatal wounds (going from memory here) were delivered by a police weapon (9mm), there is no reason to believe Grams got access to one of the GSG9 weapons during the brief firefight. So, assuming the ammunition was indeed 9mm, Newrzella was either accidentally, or on purpouse shot by a fellow GSG9 member. So saying Grams murdered Newrzella is incorrect. If anything, Grams' execution might have been a coverup by the same people who accidentally killed their colleague. As it stands this article is not neutral.--Caranorn 13:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

9mm Parabellum is the most common handgun caliber there is, especially in western Europe. It is not at all indicative of being a police weapon. If the ballistic examination had determined anything of what you claimed, there should be an official source. 82.83.224.117 11:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This theory is not very common. It is belived by most people that the SWAT member was shot by Grams. Please dont use Wikipedia to create a theory if you think other scenarios are more likely. anyway you can of course state that theory with the remark that it is belived by very few people who tend to be extremly left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.21 (talk • contribs)

And that comment from an annon who didn't even sign. This is no new theory, rather a widespread one. Obviously it's strongest among the extreme left. You may also have noted that I never actually added that material to the article as I couldn't find where I'd last read it (first was in main stream to moderate left newspapers, TV and radio). For the rest it is rather interesting to note what day these interventions by you came.--Caranorn 20:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well call it widespread, still it is not what most people think. Sure Nadir and the like might hope to convince everbody, but up to know most people just do not belive that Grams was executed. The witnesses quoted are obviously from the "Spiegel" (a modest left magazine) article. Lets just quote the author of that article: "This article was my most devastating mistake" (after the offical inquiry). So sure there is this theory of his murder, but no way you can call it a fact. If you think it is more likely that Newrzella was shot by other policemen, shot himself, is a figure of imagination or killed by the CIA to blame terrorists, than no matter how many evidence you will find- Wikipedia is still no portal for you to promote your theory (correct or not). Lets just state what the majority thinks is true and add everything else as a remark. By the way as far as i can understand it the German article seems to handle this quite allright, maybe have a look there. Yeah, just some IP: 138.246.7.21 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I read the german articles a while ago, while not complete they are indeed okay. Concerning Nadir, they are not the only ones concerned with these events, though I expect even they have not looked into the issue for some time. Concerning der Spiegel, one can't really say it's left wing anymore, if ever, it definitelly had moved well into the middle of the political spectrum by the time of Bad Kleinen. In any case it's probably the most renowned magazine for investigative journalism in the world, definitelly the unrivalled #1 in Germany. Part of the documentation definitelly has it's origin with this magazine. But as I already said, this was a strongly debated issue in all German and many European media at the time, the Spiegel was just one of many taking a close look at those events. For the rest, evidence (reliable sources) is exactly what's required for wikipedia, the problem is that in this case there is no conclusive evidence, which is why the main points of view (not ours, preferably sourcable ones) shoudl be presented.--Caranorn 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar & Rewrite

This article is very difficult to read and I think the grammar and language used needs to be anglicised, thank you -- Librarianofages 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] political priosoners

think the term is just wrong. Who are we talking about? Andreas Baader was in jail twice- a few weeks in 1970 for the arson bombing of a department store and from 1972 on. At no time he was held capured because of his political point of view, but because he had commited non-political crimes.

Ensslin was hardly a politcal prisoner as well. Convicted for the arson bombing in frankfurt as well she was released pending an appeal and did not show up again. She took part in several terrorist attacks leaving four people dead.

So even if Grams visited them in the brief period in 1970 (which i think is quite unlikely) he did not meet political prisoners. Unless of course you think fire raising is a part of expressing your political point of view. Yet there is no way i am accepting violence as part of politics.

Unless you object i will change it again tomorrow.

138.246.7.21 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I'll agree is simple. Considering Grams' birthyear it is unlikely that he visited them in 1970 during their first arrest. At that time they definitelly should not be considered terrorists as fire bombing a department store at night (iirc) is not an act of terrorism, it was also well before these people established a doctrine of terrorism. But again, go ahead and change it back to terrorism, I had some doubts after my edit as explained above.
By the way, violence has always been a part of politics, and if it's only tearing down your opponent's posters etc. (which I've always opposed) Setting something on fire as part of a political protest is also quite common, usually this leads to legal pursuit, but not necessarily to imprisonment, considering the situation at the time I'd definitelly see Baader as a political prisoner in 1970.--Caranorn 12:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Think not only his birthday but the time they were actually under arrest. After all those were really just a couple of weeks. Besides i do not know famous the two of them really were at this time and if that was sufficent to get people to visit them. So i think we can agree that it is implausible that Grams visited them during their first arrest. Anyway would be nice to know for sure- does anyone know where this information came from firsthand?
Even if violence has always been part of politics i really have a hard time to call this a justification. "Oh he set the town on fire- thats a crime" "Well he did so to express his political point of view..." "Ah than its just fine. High five for expressing himself." No i am no way found of thatcher ("crime is crime is crime"), but we should be more carefull with "political prisoner". Just two statements from Wikipedia on related topics:
"Any person who is physically restrained (by imprisonment or otherwise) from expressing (in any form of words or symbols) any opinion which he honestly holds and which does not advocate or condone personal violence." We also exclude those people who have conspired with a foreign government to overthrow their own.
"A political prisoner is someone held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, because their ideas or image are deemed by a government to either challenge or threaten the authority of the state."
I really do not think pp would be the right term for baader and ensilin even during their first arrest (though i think terrorists would not have applied either at that time)- they were not arrested because they thought Vietnam was wrong, they thought the FRG was a rotten State lead by former Nazi or anything else the like (which many people at that time thought- and were free to do so), but just because setting the store on fire. No matter why you do it you can not expect to get away with it. I have simply no idea what the usual sentence for something like that would be, but 3 years does not seem to be all to exorbitant to me. But thats just my feeling about that. Anyway you would not allow a political prisoner to give interviews and release them pending an appeal. So although they commited this crime because of politics the motivation does not seem to be the reason for their arrest to me. 138.246.7.21 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reference I just added

I just realised the reference I just added is from another wiki, possibly a copy of an old german wikipedia article. That entire article looks very similar to this one, so I'd assume it's the original source. Unfortunatelly that article doesn't include any furtehr references... Further looking through the history of the german wikipedia article I find the apparent source for the Waffen-SS claim under april 6 2004, two edits by Stefan Kühn refering to a movie/film Black Box BRD. I don't know the film, so can't judge whether this is a correct quote etc. I'm going to replace the reference I added with a short footnote pointing towards that film.--Caranorn 12:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generalbundesanwalt

Just wanted to add a note here on that office. It should probably be translated as Federal Public Prosecutor or something similar. Possibly with the Staatsanwaltschaft wikilink. But I'm not 100% certain this office is indeed the head of said Staatsanwaltschaft.--Caranorn 15:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)