The Red Army Faction, a Documentary History
Page 16
The Shopville shoot-out was more than just a snafu. For the first time, a civilian had been killed during an expropriation, and this can only have exacerbated the thoughts that some were already entertaining, that perhaps the armed path had played itself out.55
It all marked an inauspicious end to the decade.
Shopville mall, Zurich, after the fatal firefight.
Christian Klar Regarding Zurich
The starting point for the problem was that not enough thought had been given to our exit from the bank, so all it took was one unexpected development to create a situation where citizens felt encouraged to act on the bank’s behalf. Such people also eventually mobilized the police in pursuit of the RAF group.
Up to that point, nobody had been injured. However, two police officers started shootouts in two different places in the context of which a woman passerby was shot dead and a second woman was seriously injured. However, contrary to the indictment, at no point during its escape did the RAF group intentionally shoot at civilians, not even at either of the women!
It cannot be established by the physical evidence whether the death of the woman passerby or the injuring of the woman who owned the car were caused by police bullets or bullets from the RAF group’s guns. On the basis of the particular later reconstructions, there are only probabilities inferred from where people were standing and the directions of the shots. However, that does not make responsibility unclear. That lies with our action itself—particularly with the fact that when the skirmish with the police could no longer be avoided, weapons were used with a lack of caution, as well as to some degree with a grave recklessness that is unacceptable in such an environment. It is part of one’s basic responsibility when using a weapon can no longer be avoided, that it must be done in way that does not endanger any nonparticipants.
These are essential revolutionary left principles—and both as individuals and as an organization we must consistently abide by them, and implementing them must be part of the (self-)education of left-wing armed struggle organizations.
_____________
An excerpt from a 1992 trial statement: Christian Klar, “Die Situation der Gefangenen ist wie gehabt,” Angehörigen Info, September 10, 1992. This document has been translated in its entirety and is available online at http://www.germanguerilla.com/red-army-faction/documents/92-09-klar.html.
_____________
1. Amnesty International, Amnesty International’s Work on Prison Conditions of Persons Suspected or Convicted of Politically Motivated Crimes in the Federal Republic of Germany: Isolation and Solitary Confinement (London: Amnesty International, 1980), 17.
2. “Portrait of Irmgard Möller, Imprisoned for 21 Years,” in Committee ‘Solidarity with the political prisoners in Germany’ (ed.) Time Is No Inexhaustible Resource (Berlin: Committee ‘Solidarity with the political prisoners in Germany,’ nd), 10.
3. Jacco Pekelder, “The RAF Solidarity Movement from a European Perspective,” in Martin Klimke, Jacco Pekelder, and Joachim Scharloth (eds.), Between Prague Spring and French May: Opposition and Revolt in Europe, 1960-1980 (New York, Oxford: Bergahn Books, 2012), 258, 260.
4. Beatrice de Graaf (ed.), Rode Jeugd in the Netherlands (Leiden: 2009), 32-33.
5. Pekelder, 260.
6. RAF Prisoners, Hungerstreikerklärung, Hamburg, March 14, 1978.
7. There were dozens of individual and small-group hunger strikes, most of which are not detailed in this study. For instance, between 1978 and 1985, Karl-Heinz Dellwo went on hunger strike twelve times, spending a total of fourteen and a half months combined on strike.
8. As detailed in chapter 2, following her capture in Bulgaria, Rollnik had been placed in isolation in Cologne. See page 67-68.
9. Moncourt and Smith Vol. 1, 474.
10. Amnesty International (1980), 18.
11. Gerd Klusmeyer, “23 Years of Solitary Confinement and Special Custodial Measures Against Political Prisoners in Germany,” in Committee ‘Solidarity with the political prisoners in Germany,’ 6-7.
12. “Interview mit den Gefangenen dpa-Besetzern im Winter 1978/79,” in Jean-Paul Marat, Widerstand heißt Angriff!!: Erklärungen, Redebeiträge, Flugblätter und Briefe, 1977-1987 (Amsterdam: Bibliotheek voor Ontspanning en Ontwikkeling, 1988), 35.
13. Associated Press, “11 Seized after Raid on Frankfurt Agency,” European Stars and Stripes, November 10, 1978; Spiegel, “Eigene Schlosser,” January 22, 1979; dpa, “Zwölf RAF-Anhänger überfielen dpa-Büro,” Hamburger Abendblatt, November 7, 1978.
14. “Interview mit den Gefangenen dpa-Besetzern im Winter 1978/79” in Marat, 39.
15. Spiegel, “Eigene Schlösser.” Wunschik (1997), 208-210, 225-226.
16. In the years to come, Helga Roos, for instance, would serve years in prison due to bogus charges of being an “aboveground member” of the RAF, Peter Alexa would be arrested on a similar charge, while Ingrid Jakobsmeier would in fact join the RAF, and would be captured in 1984.
17. rup, “Der Fall Hoppe wird das Parlament beschäftigen” Hamburger Abendblatt, December 1, 1978.
18. Associated Press, “German Terrorist to Get Health Leave,” European Stars and Stripes, February 15, 1979.
19. See Moncourt and Smith Vol. 1, 116-117.
20. Hugh Mosley, “Third International Russell Tribunal on Civil Liberties in West Germany,” New German Critique 14 (Spring 1978): 181-182.
21. dpa, “Judos halten am Russell-Tribunal fest,” Hamburger Abendblatt, January 16, 1978.
22. dpa, “Gegen-Kongreß zum Russell-Tribunal geplant,” Hamburger Abendblatt, March 29, 1978. Some of those involved in this counter-conference included Max Frisch, Jan Amery, Eugen Kogon, Günter Grass, and Carola Stern.
23. Personal communication, May 25, 2012.
24. asd, “Besetzte Kirche mit Plakaten beklebt,” Hamburger Abendblatt, March 30, 1978.
25. For instance, Helmut Pohl’s wife Gisela Pohl, alleged RAF supporters Dag Maaske, Karin Avdic, and Andrea Klump, and future RAF members Werner Lotze, Christine Dümlein, and Birgit Hogefeld all carried out work related to the Tribunal (Wunschik [1997], 381).
26. Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 1980 (London: Amnesty International Publications, 1980), 273-274. For more on the Info System, see Moncourt and Smith Vol. 1, 344, 347.
27. Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 1979 (London: Amnesty International Publications, 1979), 131.
28. Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 1980, 275.
29. To quote Time Is No Inexhaustible Resource: “Absolutely everything about and around this trial was illegal: although her wounds had not yet even properly healed she was dragged to the court bunker in Stammheim with force. It was impossible for her to partake in the proceedings: her complete records were at the federal office for months. Since she was secluded from all political informations [sic] and needed all her strength to resist the daily terror in the prison of Stammheim she could not prepare herself for trial.” Tried on the basis of statements made by Gerhard Müller, who had broken from the RAF during the 1974-1975 hunger strike, she would receive a sentence of life plus fifteen years. (Committee ‘Solidarity with the political prisoners in Germany,’ 11)
30. Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 1980, 275.
31. Pressemitteilung, Berlin, 20.6.79.
32. Wunschik (1997), 304-309, 311.
33. Gemeinsame Erklärung anläßlich des Todes von Elisabeth von Dyck, May 8, 1979.
34. Hans Wolfgang Sternsdorff, “Im Schützengraben für die falsche Sache,” Spiegel, February 23, 1981. Wunschik (1997), 375.
35. Spiegel, “Mord beginnt beim bösen Wort,” November 7, 1977; Wunschik (1997), 232; Moncourt and Smith Vol. 1, 337.
36. Associated Press, “Nab Murder Suspect in Frankfurt,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, June 12, 1979.
37. Rolf Heißler, “Report by Rolf Heissler, Prisoner from the RAF, in Prison for 14 Years,” in Committee ‘Solidarity with the political priso
ners in Germany,’ 14.
38. J. Kumagai, “The German Solution,” IEEE Spectrum, April 11, 2003.
39. Heißler, 14.
40. See page 116.
41. Wunschik (1997), 315.
42. René Haquin and Pierre Stéphany, Les grands dossiers criminels en Belgique (Brussels: Editions Racine, 2005), 266.
43. Spiegel, “Dublin Connection,” August 20, 1979.
44. Die Zeit, “Anschlag in Ramstein,” September 11, 1981. The discrepancies in question regard the quantity of explosives used and the RAF communiqué’s reference to a tunnel. In actual fact, investigators believed only ten, not twenty, kilograms had been used, and that there was no tunnel, just a hole dug by the side of the road. In his 1991 obituary, Christian Lochte of the Hamburg Verfassungsschutz would be credited with having been one of the first to argue that the attack had indeed been carried out by the RAF. (Hamburger Abendblatt, “Ein hartnäckiger Querdenker,” September 4, 1991.)
45. Tim Naftali, Blind Spot: The Secret History of American Counterterrorism (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 117.
46. Peters, 500-501.
47. Ben Lewis and Richard Klein, Baader Meinhof: In Love with Terror (United Kingdom: A Mentorn Production for BBC Four, 2002).
48. RAF, “Serve the People: Class Struggle and the Guerilla,” in Moncourt and Smith Vol. 1, 157.
49. Reinders and Fritzch, 23-24.
50. Moncourt and Smith Vol. 1, 112.
51. Peters, 502-503.
52. Ibid., 503-504.
53. Reuters, “Charges Being Prepared against Schleyer Suspect,” The Lethbridge Herald, November 20, 1979.
54. dpa, “Lebenslang—die Mutter war dabei,” Hamburger Abendblatt, September 27, 1980.
55. See for instance, Wunschik (1997), 325.
Sixth Hunger Strike
Today, we began a hunger strike.
Following the execution of Andreas, Gudrun, Jan and Ingrid—following the death of eight prisoners from the RAF in the past three years—following the Stuttgart parliamentary investigative committee’s official cover-up of the murder of the hostages, the final scene in the intelligence service operation has unfolded, occurring at the same time as the idea was being floated that now that the leading prisoners from the RAF had been liquidated, those remaining should be dispatched as well—following all of the hunger and thirst strikes of recent years, and the torture that accompanied them: we are beginning this strike both conscious of and enraged by the fact that we have only this wretched means at our disposal, and we are doing so in the face of the boundless desire for destruction that the imperialist strategists are mobilizing against us as prisoners in their war against the armed resistance.
Our isolation from each other and from the outside world violates the promise made by the federal government a year ago.1 In spite of the internal promises of “improvements” in recent months, nothing has changed. We continue to find ourselves trapped inside an all-encompassing machine, one that assails us on several levels, cutting us off from the conditions necessary to ensure our ongoing humanity. The murders of Andreas, Gudrun, Jan, and Ingrid constitute a turning point, after which everything we have gained in the way of minimum living conditions is to be wiped away.
Given that the federal government, state security, and their justice and prison systems have made the extermination of the prisoners into an example of their readiness to commit any crime, with the contemptuous hope of smothering the revolutionary process in the metropole, we will act to make it clear that our status as hostages is an example of imperialist politics. They will once again learn that people will not let themselves be liquidated like dogs, and that there exists a type of strength that their machine cannot contain.
We demand:
That the FRG respect human rights and apply the minimum guarantees for prisoners of war, as established in the Geneva Convention. That means:
association for the prisoners of the RAF and the other anti-imperialist organizations in groups suitable for healthy interaction. We are only demanding what medical experts have been demanding for years, what Amnesty International has campaigned for, and what this state already agreed to during our April ‘77 hunger strike.
Beyond that, we demand:
that all of Andreas, Gudrun, Jan, Ingrid, and Irmgard’s confiscated writings be published—especially Gudrun’s letter to which the prison chaplain refers;2
that all facts and all material regarding October 18, 1977, be made available to an independent investigative committee.
We will not break off this strike until conditions suitable for life have been established—guaranteed by an appropriate international organization.
Hamburg Remand
for the prisoners from the RAF
March 14, 1978
_____________
1 On April 30, 1977, RAF prisoners called off their fourth collective hunger strike after receiving assurances that they would be granted limited association. Moncourt and Smith Vol. 1, 471.
2 See page 41.
Seventh Hunger Strike
We are on hunger strike against continuous and perfected isolation, part of the extermination strategy directed against the prisoners from the armed anti-imperialist groups. The clearest example of this strategy is the current project of the BAW, the BKA/State Security, and the Länder justice authorities to isolate us in special cells, a project drawing on eight years’ experience using isolation. Soundproof cement bunkers with bullet-proof windows that cannot be opened; airtight doors and an air conditioner that produce pressure fluctuations; neon lights glaring all day long; a stainless steel sink, toilet, and mirror; furniture bolted to the cement floor. Many such isolation units exist, units that are under total surveillance and are hermetically sealed off from the rest of the institution. The prisoners held in these cells have no contact with one another. “Free movement” takes place in a wire-covered cement cage that is to all intents and purposes just another cell.
In Celle, Straubing, and Stammheim, the prisoners already suffer in this type of isolation bunker; in Berlin, Lübeck, Ossendorf, and many other prisons, similar units have been built or tested.
This machinery of destruction is being used because the state recognizes that the prisoners who were subjected to the previous isolation techniques had not been broken and that the murders of Ulrike, Andreas, Gudrun, Jan, and Ingrid and the attempted murder of Irmgard—made to look like suicides—were and are detrimental to the federal government’s objective. This objective, the establishment of social democracy’s “Model Germany” throughout Western Europe and beyond, is to be legitimized in the eyes of the people through the direct vote at the European Parliament—as, for example, was indicated during Kohl’s recent appearances in Holland. (That doesn’t preclude the federal government executing more prisoners should guerilla actions raise the stakes.)
The prisoners who refuse to stop struggling and who reject the “re-socialization” deal, who neither renounce nor collaborate, are to be physically and psychologically destroyed in the new isolation bunkers; when they are released they are to be incapable of further resistance— “their condition should make it nearly impossible” for them “to play any active role for the foreseeable future” in the anti-imperialist struggle, as Senator for Justice Dahrendorf has cynically formulated the counterstrategy’s objective.
We demand:
the abolition of isolation bunkers;
the application of the minimum guarantees of the Geneva Convention and the International Declaration on Human Rights for all prisoners from anti-imperialist groups;
association of these prisoners in groups large enough to allow interaction, as recommended by medical specialists;
freedom for Günter Sonnenberg, whose head injury renders him unfit for prison;
an inquiry into prison conditions by an international humanitarian body/organization.
In Ireland, Spain, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, France, and Israel prisoners are struggling against prison conditions
meant to destroy their political identity and to physically break them—prison conditions that, for the most part, have been implemented in the FRG.
Our hunger strike is part of this struggle and an expression of our solidarity with all prisoners who even in prison are resisting.
The Berlin RAF prisoners
April 20, 1979
Attack on Alexander Haig
On June 25, 1979, the Andreas Baader Commando carried out a bomb attack on NATO Commander-in-Chief General Alexander Haig.
We want to explain how the action failed in its concrete objective, which was to directly hit Haig:
We dug a 1.8 meter trench under the road surface of a bridge on the route from Haig’s home to the NATO Headquarters and buried the payload (20 kg of plastic explosives) approximately 40 cm below the surface. The fuse was a 200-meter electrical cable, to be triggered at the moment when the front door of Haig’s Mercedes was directly above the payload. We had determined that his car traveled two meters per tenth of a second. Our error was in thinking that we could manually trigger the explosion precisely enough with the target moving that quickly.
We carried out this action, because Haig represents and executes in a particularly precise way the “new course” or “modified style” of the American strategy.
Since the political and military defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam all that has changed is that instead of U.S. aggression decreasing, it is increasing, confronting the people of the world with a new American offensive, which also marks a qualitative leap forward in the development of the relationship of forces between the revolution and the counterrevolution, or, as we have said elsewhere, the worldwide revolutionary process of the cities being encircled by the villages.