Talk:German Autumn

Is German Autumn really a used term in Britain or the states for the Deutsche Herbst? Or is it a translation from a german? --mirer 19:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Google for "german autumn" finds 9100 hits, including a book on the subject and a BBC newsstory (which uses both "autumn of terror" and "german autumn" - both in quotation marks). I suspect the events are nit significant enough for the english speaking world to warrant a proper word other than the translation 195.128.251.243 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Regarding the extra-judical killings... why not point to a couple of links to sources or other debate? It's an important part of left-wing mythology and I'd like to read more about it.

---

Why is the PFLP called a 'terrorist group'? They are freedom fighters.

• Raf confuses them with the royal air force.

Misleading description of Schleyer

In the article Schleyer is introduced as "former SS officer and NSDAP member" and "industrialist". Schleyer was a board member at Daimler-Benz and president of the powerful federation of employers' associations. The description in this article reduces his importance largely to his past (he joined the SS whan he was 18) and thus suggests strongly and right from the start that he somehow deserved what he got and that his murderers had, after all, a point. To discuss the fact that Schleyer was a controversial figure for more than one reason in a separate paragraph further down the page would do the truth a better service.

I recommend, for those who can read it, the German entry.

Verity Truth 21:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted it and I'm reverting. The RAF did have, "after all, a point" to make, even if we might consider it incorrect -- his Nazi background was hardly inconsequential to his being chosen as a hostage. Echeneida (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Echeneida, I hadn't seen this comment from you. I just checked the end of the talk page when I saw your edit without any summary. (BTW, if you really didn't want an edit war, then I don't see why you reverted at all rather than simply use the talk page--let alone without giving a reason in the summary field. But whatever...)

As for content, I strongly agree with Verity Truth. While Schleyer's Nazi background may not have been inconvenient for the RAF (but that's mere speculation), it can hardly be called a decisive factor for the choice of him as a hostage: Germany in 1977 was crowded with ex-Nazi members and vastly populated even with ex-SS officers. In fact, there would have been more high-ranking officers if that's what the RAF was after. The truth is, they did not go after ex-Nazis, but after "industrialists" or "capitalists" or whatever you want to call it. Of course, if you should have sources to the contrary, I'll be happy to listen to them. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have pointed to the talk page in my edit summary earlier, sorry about that. I also apologize for my possibly-poor understanding of wiki-etiquette, but I thought the removal of information from the article was what required conversation here first, which is why I undid it. I do think the information is pertinent (the idea that they were after "'capitalists' or whatever" rather than Nazis, implying that one has nothing to do with the other, reflects your own ideological position and not that of the kidnappers; the socialist analysis of Nazism explains it as an extreme development within capitalism) but I agree with Verity Truth that mentioning it in a later paragraph (not simply deleting the information) would be much better. This would require some restructuring of the article, which IMO would be good anyway; I'll probably work on this myself pretty soon if nobody else gets to it. --Echeneida (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Shit, I've actually changed my mind. This article doesn't really need more than the briefest description of events. If nobody else objects, I guess delete that bit if you want. --Echeneida (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just changed the page without looking up the discussion page first; I think Schleyer was a target becaus of his position. After all, the RAF didn't abduct any old ex-Nazi officer they could lay their hands on. --chlange001 (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, they didn't -- because they weren't motivated by some desire to punish people for having been Nazis. Their concern was that the wealthy elite -- the ruling class -- was composed of former Nazis, and with the relationship between capitalism and fascism. Echeneida (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

German Autumn

I suspect the events are nit significant enough for the english speaking world to warrant a proper word other than the translation

Why use anything BUT the translation when the term is so clearly defined? Did we Germans invent anything fancy for -- say -- the Wars of the Roses instead of calling it just Rosenkriege? No, we didn't. Would there be a necessity to call it anything else? Geranienkriege or what? So why the discontent with German Autumn?

And anybody who finds the events of the German Autumn "not significant", now, exactly 30 years later and in the chilling light of global Islamist terror, needs his head examined some private lessons in history.

Verity Truth 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about this not being significant enough? As for the bio article it seems fine to me. If you think it violates WP:UNDUE you might want to discuss that on the appropriate talk page. EconomicsGuy 13:50, 18 October 2007 (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)

Beginning

Please could anyone supply and shortly describe, that the first case in the year of terror 1977 was the assassination of the chief federal prosecutor Siegfried Buback and two other men on April 7, 1977? (The murder of Ponto was later, on July 30). - It was important in the previous history of the events in autumn. -- TimHalldor (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

RAF murderd

we all know that the deaths of the raf members were questionable but they were not officially murdered the article should reflect this instead of outright claiming they were murderd in there cells 78.148.169.55 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Here is where it was changed to say they were "murdered" -- I'm changing it back. Echeneida (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

no we DO NOT know that they were murdered - you (and many leftists) want to know that they were murdered - the rest of the world knows that they are dead and that they probably (but not 100% sure) comited suicide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.218.55 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Gun supply

As far as I know Arndt Müller never admitted that he passed the guns inside the Prison. Besides, jailers or prison officials were present during the meetings between lawyers and defendants. Thus the relevant sentence inside the article should change to be clear that, this was the official version.

Policy response section

This is a highly biased section, IMO, and largely incorrect. If it is based on the two references given ("Nach der Katastrophe" und "Fire and Flames") then the same goes for those. Toughening of police and judicial rules in order to deal with the perceived threat from terrorism had begun long before these events; using the phrase "police state" in conjunction with those even in the present form ("a little way") is wide of the mark. Furthermore, the "Großer Krisenstab" was not a "government" at all, it was a regular meeting of high-level officials for dealing with the crisis at hand. It did not preempt or usurp the government in any way, nor did it deal with unrelated matters. To sum it up: much would have to be changed about this section to bring it in line with the standards of this medium (and with reality); I think it would best be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udittmer (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaders

The infobox suggests, that Hanns Martin Schleyer and Siegfried Buback were fighting the RAF. They were both kidnapped and murdered, but the sole "leader" would be the leader of the German government, which was the just deceased Helmut Schmidt. One might argue they were representing what the RAF was fighting, but they were not the leaders. --Aeroid (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)