Talk:Red Army Faction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV!

Remember that when you're posting things! -G

Yes, please! And maybe also WP:NOR for good measure ... Maikel 12:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Motives of involvement of other players

The so-called third generation was PARTLY a phantom created by secret players With Braunmühl, Herrhausen and Rohwedder there are no shred of evidence for red army fraction involvement but considerable motives of pro-business clandestine operatives. Keywords: Braunmuehl's Reagan-disarmament taken briefcase, Herrhausen finance-reform, Rohwedder ownership of GDR. Please read the excellent wikipedia article on GLADIO and Celle Hole in german 203.184.35.187 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence? book cites etc? This is english wikipedia, translate the german articles if you want us to seriously consider any sourced material in them. --maxrspct ping me 21:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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.

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)

For those of you who are German-impaired, the quote from the German article translates to

On 9 May 1976, the authorities announced the suicide of Ulrike Meinhof. Many contradictions and inconsistencies in the official report of her death led, among other things, to the formation of an international commission of inquiry. This documented many doubts about the official version: "The results of the investigations concluded that Ulrike Meinhof was dead by hanging, and that there are disturbing indications that someone else intervened in this death." Jhobson1 (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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

What are you some left wing teen? How could you even argue such a thing. Of course they are terrorists. They target anyone they consider a capitalist, and that is "worthy" of being taken down. Their motive is to terrorize the group of people. I sometimes wonder, do people like you get payed to decimate the status of terrorist scum to heroes?

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

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)

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)

Their were TERRORIST and nothing else, these cynicle euphemisms make me puke (sorry my bad english) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.192.137 (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oh no, not again!

The problem with calling the RAF "militant" rather than "terrorist" in order to avoid mixing them up with the al-Quaeda blend of terrorism is that you are then even more unjustly mixing them up with another group, viz the militants. And the RAF was clearly beyond that pale. Maikel 12:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It wasnt an attack by the Red Army Fraction but by the Revolutionary Cells. See: ID-Archiv im IISG/Amsterdam: Früchte des Zorns. Texte und Materialien zur Geschichte der Revolutionären Zellen und der Roten Zora. Berlin und Amsterdam 1993. ISBN 3-89408-023-X - Online: http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/id-verlag/BuchTexte/Zorn/Zorn35.html#2

It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. They "blow Up U.S. Army Gasoline Tank" and nobody died.

Krakatau, -- 77.128.52.58 11:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Grams

In the section about Bad Kleinen it's said that Grams was shot. In fact there is no conformimation of this and the officials including a trial on european court of justice for human rights. regards, georg --84.145.91.176 08:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Grams died in Bad Kleinen. There was debate whether he was killed by police or if he committed suicide. The European Court ruled that the complaint by Grams' parents was arbitrary. --Heikoh 12:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A German trial declared that there were no evidence neither for suicide nor murder--81.173.148.255 11:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

June 1985 Frankfurt Airport

I have deleted the entry referring to a bomb blast in the Frankfurt Airport departure area in June 1985. This was and is not attributed to the RAF. Besides, the bomb blast did not happen on June 9, 1985, but June 19, 1985. RAF has only taken the responsibility for the attack on the Rhein Main Airbase, a US military installation on the south of the Frankfurt airport, in August 1985.--L.Willms 20:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Background

That section is vastly oversized and largely NPOV. Maikel 13:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at it you will see that it is sourced. --maxrspct ping me 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

RAF = jibe at the Royal Airforce?

The abbreviation RAF was also a gibe at the Royal Air Force, a major contributor to the huge NATO presence in West Germany. ... doesn't make any sense and I very much doubt it. Maikel 14:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I put that there. Its in Tom Vague's book and elsewhere, but since i cannot find my copy immediately at hand .. cite tag it or take it out if you want to. --maxrspct ping me 16:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I also remember this from Vague's book. However, it does sound a little improbable and there are other instances of innacuracies in Televisionaries. Aust's book is generally more reliable - i'll check if he mentions it. Somearemoreequal 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems unlikely to me as well. Unless there's an RAF-based source (either primary or quoted in secondary), I would view it as meaningless academic speculation. - Che Nuevara 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

End of activities

Some has changed the date the group 'operated' until .. as 1993 rather than 1998 - when the end communique was issued. Should there be a reword or a revert on this? --maxrspct ping me 16:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fraktion or faction

÷14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)80.137.5.94 (talk)As a German native speaker I d like to point out that the German term "Fraktion" means a seperated group within a greater group. The English word "fracture" has the same roots, so a fraktion means generally a group which has broken away from a bigger group. The translation as "splinter group" comes in fact closest to the original meaning. In German "Fraktion" is also a common political term, which describes members of the Bundestag belonging to the same political party and voting accordingly. Therefore in German understanding a "fraktion" is a political group of the same allegiance. By choosing their Name RAF wanted to express that they were a political group within the APO which pursued their interests and goals by means of the Red Army, i.e. by violence. So a "fraktion" is not necessariy a faction and should not be translated as such.

Well.. Its does state that as i wrote - part of a larger movement/set of groupscules. But in english 'splinter groups' are exiles/renegades who usually have nothing to do with the parent body/ies.. (whereas RAF fed off of (membership, activity and philosophy) the larger groupings inc APO) 'platform' e.g within Scottish Socialist Party, and 'group' e.g Tribune and Campaign Group within Labour Party in english-speaking countries and UK party politics is used more in the context of european style groups within parties. Media useage of 'faction' when talking about third world movements and politics is used with negative connotation and used after the infamy of the RAF.. a portrayal of wild-eyed fanatics hiving off in sect-like fashion. Also I would say covert or armed/militant rather than simply violence... a term which is simplistic and morally laden. -maxrspct ping me 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The RAF called itself RAF, because of WW2, Churchill's air force (to speak slightly enigmatically), the poor souls wanted to portrait themselves as an European VCong, up to the job of eye to eye combat with the evil superpower, so the semantics of fraction (useful if one thinks of "hirn-rissig") are less important than "give me a f". This urdeutsche Größenwahn really smakes of Mahler--Radh (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hanns Martin Schleyer in captivity.jpg

Image:Hanns Martin Schleyer in captivity.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. - Revolving Bugbear 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad English

I have corrected numerous cases of bad (often Germanized) English in the article, without altering the sense. By the way, is this (as it looks) an English-language playground for left-wing Germans? APW (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

corrected a poorly translated phrase —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.1.183 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More on fraction and faction

The part of the article on this is confused and confusing. The point is simple: the word 'fraction' is virtually unknown in English in the meaning 'a political grouping' (or any other grouping for that matter). See for example the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. APW (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LandshutInMogadishu.gif

The image Image:LandshutInMogadishu.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Support from the GDR

The reference to money received by Rainer Röhl and Ulrike Meinhof when they were married is irrelevant to an article about the RAF as their marriage had ended before the RAF was founded. Unless somebody can justify including this information here and not, for example, in the article about Röhl, I will delete it. There are, however, other allegations of support from the GDR (over and above providing asylum for former RAF activists), but these would need to be documented. --Mia-etol (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ten days since I raised this matter. Nobody has responded. If nobody does soon I will delete the reference. --Mia-etol (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As a further week has passed without comment I've removed the section below because it refers to the period before the foundation of the RAF. By the time the RAF was founded Meinhoff and Röhl were divorced. My recollection is that Röhl was supported by the GDR as an "agent of influence" within the West German left.

Support from the GDR

RAF members received financial support from the government of the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Ulrike Meinhof's daughter Bettina Röhl has in her autobiography described how her parents lived in luxury with money from the East German intelligence agency. The amounts were so large they could even buy a mansion in Hamburg.

Other support was given to the RAF - or at least to former members, who were given new identities and allowed to settle in the GDR. This should definitely be recorded but unfortunately I can't cite any sources at the moment. I think there were some articles in Spiegel a few years ago. --Mia-etol (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the reference again because it refers to events several years before the formation of the RAF. Please explain why the payment of money to Rainer Röhl, the divorced husband of Ulrike Meinhof, during their marriage is relevant in an article about the RAF while it isn't even mentioned in the article about Röhl himself. The money was supposed to finance the publication of the magazine konkret, edited by Röhl. --Mia-etol (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are able to read german, have al look at de:RAF-Aussteiger. Hybscher (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that this is already dealt with and sourced in the section on the 1980s and 1990s. --Mia-etol (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

I've moved the section on anti-semitism without changing the content, as it appears to me that whatever about Mahler, who is now a militant NATIONAL socialist, the majority of the RAF founders were internationalist in their orientation and there is no evidence I'm aware of that they were anti-semitic. Indeed they emerged out of the APO, one of whose main themes was the necessity of acknowledging and critiquing the Nazi past and its continuing influence in the Federal Republic (Kiesinger the Federal Chancellor until he was replaced by Willy Brandt had been a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party).

There is a large element of self-justification in Mahler's assertions about the RAF and other former members distance themselves from his interpretations. --Mia-etol (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence of a general anti-semitic tendency on the German far-left in this period which resulted in the entebbe hijacking, the firebombing of a synagogue on the anniversary of krystallnacht and plans to murder the head of the Jewish community.

For more information see http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6705

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10511

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ulrike_Meinhof :

Auschwitz meant that six million Jews were killed, and thrown on the waste-heap of Europe, for what they were represented as: money-Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, steered the hatred of men against money and exploitation into hatred against the Jews. . . . Antisemitism is really a hatred of capitalism.

Mahler says his antisemitism has not changed, so we can conclude that there was antisemitism in the Baader Meinhoff, at least from him.

Just because they were anti-fascist doesnt mean they couldn't be antisemitic. The new location seems fine to me, I agree that more evidence would help. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The Meinhof quote shows a seriously distorted understanding of anti-semitism and makes Mahler's later political evolution a bit easier to understand. August Bebel had a better understanding when he called anti-semitism the "socialism of fools".

Somebody should perhaps integrate the Meinhof quote into the section. I think it's probably more important than using the Mahler quote, given his later development. --Mia-etol (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting reading at [1]. The Meinhof quote is from a trial, and as the article explains there are different ways of interpreting the message that Meinhof was trying to convey (and that Meinhof's stance in court was hardly a coherent political manifesto). I think it's important that we stand by WP:OR policy here, and not make our judgements and interpretations from quotes removed from their context. I cannot see, as per the discussion so far, any solid backing that RAF as an organization would be antisemitic, that antisemitism would have moulded its political activity. I think its a side-track on writing the history of the RAF, and I see no reason why give undue weight to the issue. --Soman (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that certain people equate any stand against Isreali actions with "anti-semetism". Just like they will claim the use of the word "certain" in that sentence to be anti-semetism. Lars T. (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Which "certain people" are you referring to? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

which part of the Meinhoff quote to you think was "a stand against Israel"?

Telaviv1 (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said that, only that the RAF was pro-Palestinian. OTOH where is the anti-semetism in that quote? Is it now anti-semitic to say that jews were killed? Or that they were passed of as "money jews"? Or the claim that it wasn't some inherent anti-semetism of the gentiles that lead to the death of six millions jews, but that they were killed as evil Capitalists? It may be stupid, but it isn't anti-semitic. Lars T. (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it is completely both of those. Stupidity and anti-semitism are quite common friends. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you call me stupid, you must explain how it is anti-semitic. Use simple words, or I won't understand. And while you are at it, why don't you explain why an "anti-semitic terror group" never attacked jews, but instead those they considered Nazis? Lars T. (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I didn't call you stupid, I'll simply assume in good faith that your reading skills are poor. Unfortunately, that also must be generalized to the rest of what you're saying here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

IOW you can't explain how the quote is anti-semitic - thanks for clearing that up. Lars T. (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The present wording "can be read as" is essentially a weasel wording. Notably, albeit the libertarian website is linked for the quote, the way the quote is ripped out of its context is by no means representative of the article as such. We cannot base entire sections of articles on subjective interpretations of our own, case remains that anti-semitism (be it that you can find quotes that are unsympathetic) wasn't a feature of the RAF. I stand unconvinced so far as to the need of an 'Antisemitism' section in this article. --Soman (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point, Mr. "I don't have a real argument, so I claim my opponent is anti-semitic". Lars T. (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How nice to delete your comment, and send in re-enforcement instead, you coward. Why don't you explain why an "anti-semitic terror group" never attacked jews? Lars T. (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I felt my previous comment was made in anger and wrong so I deleted it. I realize that the use of the word "antisemitic" was causing a problem and I have taken that into account. Like racism and even sexism, antisemitism can be reflected in attitudes and statements as well as action and is not always overt or conscious.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Documentary?

Anyone know the details of the (relatively) recent documentary film (i.e. *not* the Aust feature film) which included interviews with some who have never spoken before? Would be good to include. Testbed (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As a partial answer to my own question (above), here is a useful list of works (I'll try and edit in when I have some time): [2] Testbed (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How German Is It, by Walter Abish

Won the Pulitzer in 1981. Based on Hitler's Children, also on Heidegger.--Radh (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

First we take Manhattan

If L Cohen's song really was about the raf, it should be put back in.--Radh (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Italian Leftwing Culture Heroes

Baader and esp. Meinhof were (are?) very big in italian left wing culture (film and music).--Radh (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gramsci

Christian Riechers' 1 Vol. Gramsci edition was in the extensive raf-prisoner's library at Stammheim prison.--Radh (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Horst Mahler

There is good reason to suppose he was always an antisemite: he has said that his enemy hasn't changed, his work with the PFLP (funded by Francois Genoud) and the statement of support for the Munich Massacre. The text implies his antisemitism is a new development and it perhaps needs to be carefully rephrased so as to say he is an atnisemite without stating when this began.

Telaviv1 (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mahler has a very complicated personal/political history (as can be still seen from the stuff on his homepage- at least the last time I dared to), as far as I know he was a right wing student (Korpsstudent), then SDS and SPD (which soon expelled all SDS members), it is said he finished his law studies with the very best note (1), absolutely rare this. He earned a lot of money from wealthy clients in the 60s (still seems to have rich friends) but got more and more drawn into the student revolt, working without pay for army deserters and students accused of having disturbed the peace and quiet of the land (Landesfriedensbruch). He held very militant speeches against Springer (here are probably the deepest roots of the raf) and must have begun to see himself as a revolutionary. If he was an antisemite in the 60s it will show in his speeches and talks of this time. Then everything moves fast. Serious, still also well established Mahler (and friends, people who work for him at his law firm,...) meets the "pimpish" Baader and his (now also bohemian) girlfriend Ensslin and both groups seem to have arranged to join forces, voila the RAF is born. And all early raf and many more other people went to Palestine to get started in the guerilla businee. Mahler and late-comer Meinhof were the raf' s most prominent members (in the eyes of the public, but also far into the radical milieu) and probably wrote a lot of the early papers (,but certainly not without debates). I think it is simply impossible to say this is antisemitic, it must be Mahler. At that time it probably was Meinhof (who come from the old KPD (not the DKP!) milieu, which had a long history of antisemitism going well back into its Weimar phase. I am sorry if this is too long.--Radh (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about this. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I am prety sure that this sketch of Mahler is correct as it stands, but I really do not know as much about him, as I sometimes want to (but not most of the time. He is a pretty scare guy).

I have spent some time trying to work out early 70s Frankfurt terrorism, but sources there are a bit of a problem. Not so much with the raf, perhaps for their very early founding period,- and for the last years. But I am only really interested in the time I too saw heroes (kind of) in them.

If you can read german, there is the homepage of Gerd Koenen with excellent stuff. Also, there are a few hardcore users on german Wikipedia that really know the whole story backwards and forewards.

E.g.: One of them has a long essay on his own Wikipedia site about this famous Gudrun Ensslin line (the are all out to get us) and shows it to be a bit of an urban legend,....leftist people, but knowledgeable and approachable, too.

I really think the "Background" here (not all of it, but too much) is pseudo-informed, has a very strong pro communist POV, also not at all the kind of communist POV of the RAF itself.

1 or 2 students like Riechers, perhaps Haug in Berlin, but certainly not the Raf, read or even knew Gramsci's name then (next to nothing was translated). To drag him in just shows that the writers of this article have no idea about the reality of leftwing radicalism in Germany at that time and see everything through later apologisers or see everything through a Toni Negrian (or whatever) lense.

To drag the french in as reliable sources for raf ideology is plainly ridiculous. They did not really give a hoot what exactly went on in Germany and had their own axes to grind blindly supporting scum like Croissant.

If you do not read german, feel absolutely free to ask me any questions you want (even the library here has some books on it), I will try to help you (or even do some stuff myself to) improve this rather hopeless article. .--Radh (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Antisemitism and early german terrorism: 1.) D. Kunzelman's, Tupamaros Westberlin's (not working) bomb at the jewish community center. W. Kraushaar essaqy about this. Many essays pro and contra Kraushaar in the press and on line.

2.) W. Böse(RZ) helped the Palestine freedom fighters to get into Munich from the airport. (Only?) source H-J Klein (whom Böse told this). 3.) Meinhof (?)'s jubilation about this. Mahler's (?). 4.) W. Böse more antisemitic as even Carlos (Klein). 5.) The german left wing's disgust at Israel after Entebbe.--Radh (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot speak German. Truth is, you seem a reliable editor of this stuff and I am happy for you to get on with it.

Telaviv1 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will try. I have to admit that I don't know or have forgotten an awful lot of the dates and details. But, as said, there are very good people on this at german Wikipedia. And please feel free to ask for anything. As long as I have the time and can work at it I'll be very glad to help. (I have this funny idea to get a useful overview/catalog of 60s german left-wing radicalism (the intellectual aspects) off the ground, so working on Mahler or the Roter Stern Verlag is all part of this).--Radh (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Westgermany a totalitarian state

Does this article express the idea, that that Westgermany was on the sure way to become a totalitarian state or even was one already?--Radh (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Inserts in German

Somebody, I don't know who, inserted the same comment in German into the body of the text, several times. The comments were signed as if by Radh but the name was in red. I cut the comments and blamed their insertion on Radh in my own annotation to the edit, but I am persuaded from looking at Radh's own comments that it wasn't him who was defacing the article in this way. Apologies to Radh for the wrong attribution; whoever is inserting bits of German into the text, please stop it. Lexo (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)