German Autumn 1977

Terrorism in Germany

Tell your story in 4 chapters:
German Autumn 1977.
We will show you how.

Time required: about 90 min.
Year 9/10

German Autumn 1977 | Chapter 01

Autumn Starts

A quiet residential area in Cologne. Two Mercedes-Benz turn down Vincenz-Statz Strasse, driving extremely close to each other. Another 600 metres – the destination is the flat of a powerful manager. He is sitting in the back of the first vehicle, a dark Mercedes; his driver is up front, alone, unarmed. Three police bodyguards follow closely behind in a light-coloured car. Suddenly, one of the cars blocks the street. The vehicles crash into each other and abruptly stand still.
Three men and a woman come out of cover and fire their automatic weapons. 120 shots in 120 seconds, until finally all that can be heard is the click of an empty magazine.
It is Monday, 5th September, 1977, 17:30. The first day of the “German Autumn” – the name the following weeks will be given later.

In Chapter 01, 5 work steps await you.

Let's go

What threatens us?

01
What threatens us? | Facts and Assumptions

What exactly has happened?
What is known shortly after the attack?
The evening news at 20:00 will provide some first clues.

Task 1.1:

  • First, watch the whole news clip once.

Which statements do the evening news make?

  • Drag the correct statements into the answer field. Pay attention to the difference between facts and assumptions.

  • , if you want to read the spoken text.

Facts and assumptions
According to the Federal Criminal Police Office, two attacks took place at the same time.
It was the first attack of this kind in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Multiple attacks have already taken place in 1977.
The assailants are presumably terrorists.
It was an abduction.
Nothing is said about the assailants.
It was probably an abduction.

That was not quite right. You still have 3 attempts.

That was not quite right. You still have 2 attempts.

That was not quite right. You still have 1 attempt.

That wasn't correct.

Great. Everything solved correctly!

That's the right answer!

What threatens us? | Chancellor Helmut Schmidt I

In 1977, the Federal Chancellor is Helmut Schmidt  (SPD)He personally takes charge of the crisis management. If Schmidt fails, he will probably have to resign. The same evening, he addresses the people of Germany in a televised speech. The question is whether the public trust him with the task.

Task 1.2
What do you think?
What impression did the speech make on the people of Germany?

  • Watch the speech carefully.

  • Highlight 3 words that best characterise how he comes across.
    Tip 

insecure · confident · befuddled · determined · unclear · purposeful ·agitated · credible · arrogant · desperate · convincing · tense

 

1 ×

The question is not what impression Schmidt makes on you today. It’s about the impression on the audience back then!
How to go about the question?
Take the media experience of people back then into consideration. The following information might help:

  • In 1977, there were only two television channels in Germany: ARD and ZDF. There were no commercial stations.

  • The main information media were radio and the daily newspaper.

  • Back then, only about 60% of the households had a telephone.

What threatens us? | Chancellor Helmut Schmidt II

Task 1.3
In (S1) you will find an excerpt from the speech.
Which picture does Schmidt paint of the state and which picture does he paint of the terrorists?

  • Put the statements about the state and about the terrorists in the order in which they appear in the speech.
    Tip 

The State The Terrorists
1
The police will receive all resources necessary to track the perpetrators.
All state forces available will be mobilised
2
The crimes of the terrorists are inhuman.
We knew that further attacks would follow.
3
There is no support for terrorism amongst the population.
The state is obliged to defend itself.

You have 3 more tries. Consider the tips.

Hmm, that wasn’t quite right. 2 more tries.

Last try. Take your time. Read carefully.

Das war leider auch nicht richtig. Schade!

Great. Solved correctly!

That's the right answer.

1 ×

Tips:

  1. The first statement for each column is marked in bold italics for the state, and in bold for the terrorists..

  2. Highlight the other text passages in different colours.

What threatens us? | Your Story Part 1

In this section, we want “your story”. You’ve already heard quite a bit about this period.
Now tell your story: “German Autumn 1977”.

Task 1.4
These two points might help you

  • Write down two keywords for each point.

    Ask yourself: “What matters to me?”
    - concerning the attack?
    - concerning the Chancellor’s reaction?
    Tip 

Attack:
- 
- 

Chancellor Helmut Schmidt:
- 
- 

Task 1.5

  • Formulate 4-6 coherent sentences with your keywords. If you need tips, you will find them here.

Two Tips for Writing

 

Here, you can formulate your story, part 1. Later on, copy this text into your “permanent text field” (on the upper right, the bright icon with the pen).

Words min.
0/35
1 ×

Keywords for “attack” might be:
brutality / uncertainty / occurred in Cologne / 4 dead – 1 kidnap victim/ German manager / series of attacks in 1977, …

  • You can use two of these.
  • Proceed in the same way for the other point.
Two Tips for Writing

Writing Tip No. 1: Making Full Sentences From Keywords

An example for making full sentences for attack with the keywords: “brutality”, “uncertainty”

The RAF kidnapped Hanns Martin Schleyer in September, 1977, and brutally shot his four companions. For the first few hours, it was completely unclear whether he was still alive or not.

You can use this wording. Make full sentences with the other keywords following this example.

Writing Tip No. 2: Time

History has to do with time.
Write in a way so that the reader gets an orientation as to the sequence of events (beginning, end, …). Have a look at the formulations above: “…in September, 1977…” and “for the first few hours…”.

 

Material

(S1) Transcipt of the Evening News, 5th September, 1977

Five weeks after the assassination of Ponto, an attack on the president of the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations, Hanns Martin Schleyer, has taken place in Cologne. Schleyer has apparently been injured and possibly been kidnapped.

Four police officers escorting him were killed. A search has been launched for the hitherto unknown assailants. The Federal Criminal Police Office immediately joined in the investigations.

Since 18:11, reports of the attack on Schleyer have been rushing in. Nevertheless, it is not possible to gain clarity concerning the course of events and the victim. After rumours that nothing was known about Schleyer’s state of health and whereabouts, a police spokesman in Cologne speculated that Schleyer had been abducted. Shortly afterwards, a police spokesman refuted rumours of an abduction, stating that Schleyer had in fact been taken to a hospital.

Again shortly after, the Federal Criminal Police Office in Wiesbaden is said to have confirmed the abduction of the Employers’ President – without disclosing any further details. This was finally disputed by another member of the Federal Criminal Police Office. The fact that apparently no official agency knows where Schleyer is supports the notion of an abduction.

(S2) Excerpt From the Address of the Chancellor on 5th September, 1977

On the evening of the attack, Helmut Schmidt issued a statement on television:

“[…] Four persons killed, citizens of our state, have been added to the list of victims of raging terrorists, who – as we have consistently been aware – have not yet spent their criminal energy.

We are all filled […] with profound anger at the brutality with which the terrorists proceed in their criminal delirium. They want to undermine our democratic state and the trust citizens have in our state.

The state […] must respond to this with the utmost severity. All police and security agencies […] therefore have the unconditional support of the Federal Government and also my very personal backing […] Terrorism stands no chance in the long run, for not only is terrorism defied by the will of the government authorities, but terrorism is defied by the will of the entire people. […]”

Dokumentation der Bundesregierung zur Entführung von Hanns Martin Schleyer. Munich 1977. P. 229f.

What threatens us?

Baustein 1ist geschafft!

Lass deinen Lehrer wissen, dass du diese Lektion abgeschlossen hast, indem du auf die Schaltfläche rechts klickst.

What do we need?

Thinking the
Unthinkable

German Autumn 1977 | Chapter 02

Thinking the
Unthinkable

Tuesday, 6th September, 23:30. Emergency meeting in Bonn: The kidnappers demand the immediate release of imprisoned RAF members. Federal Chancellor Helmut Schmidt (SPD) has summoned leading politicians to his office. The objective is clear:

“To free the [hostage] alive, to seize the kidnappers and bring them to justice, not to jeopardise the state’s ability to act nor the people’s trust in it.”

He urges the participants to “think the unthinkable”, so to make even the most far-fetched suggestions in order to bring the crisis to a successful end. Nothing is to be left untried.
Which suggestions are made to the Chancellor?
What should he choose to do?

In Chapter 02, 5 work steps await you.

Let's go

What do we need?

02
What do we need? | Negotiating I

In the German newspaper Bild, the wife of Hanns Martin Schleyer demands: “Let my husband live! Make the exchange for him!”
The kidnap victim’s son even wants to obligate the government to do so. He submits a petition to the Federal Constitutional Court to exchange the hostage. The government will have to follow the ruling of the highest German court.
Should the state negotiate with the terrorists?

Task 2.1

  • First, make a spontaneous decision.

Should the state exchange a hostage for 11 prisoners?

I tend toward “yes” I tend toward “no”
What do we need? | Negotiating II

In 1975, the politician Peter Lorenz was kidnapped. The Federal Republic of Germany negotiated with the terrorists, paid ransom and flew five terrorists out to another country.
Peter Lorenz was released.
Can this decision serve as a model?

Task 2.2 

  • Highlight Eberhard Schleyer‘s arguments (S1).

  • Highlight the arguments of the Federal Government (S2).

Which position would you adopt as a judge?

  • Choose one of the rulings.
    Explain it in 2-3 sentences.

The petition is successful.
The hostage has to be exchanged.

The petition is rejected.
The government is not obligated to exchange the hostage.

Your explanation ...

Words min.
0/25
What do we need? | Death Penalty I

Article 102 of the German Basic Law consists of just one sentence: "Capital punishment is abolished.“  After Schleyer’s kidnapping, members of the public and politicians alike openly discuss drumhead court-martials

According to a poll, 67% of the German populace are in favour of the death penalty.
Which consequences does this have for the government?

Task 2.3
Get an idea of the attitude amongst the general public.

  • Watch the survey in an urban pedestrian precinct.

Which atmosphere can you sense on the streets?

  • Highlight the 3 adjectives that fit best in your opinion.

irritated · sober · intense · reasonable · unemotional · calculating · reproachful · passionate · superficial · frigid · heated · objective

What do we need? | Death Penalty II

You have heard a few arguments. They are listed in the table below on the right side.
Which forms of social coexistence are the individual persons thinking of?
Which fundamental convictions are the statementsbased on?

Task 2.4

  • Link the statements to the fundamental convictions.

The state has sufficiently power to act by means of its laws.
"Constitutional democracy gives us all the means necessary to hunt the criminals down.”
The assumption that revenge and retaliation could solve problems.
"An executed criminal bows out from becoming a future assassin."
Executions protect the state and society.
"They’re so brutal, the death penalty won’t deter the terrorists."
Humanity is displayed by controlling baser instincts.
"The moment they shoot Schleyer, they will shoot all the terrorists in prison."
Executions do not protect the state and society.
"The fact that they are animals doesn’t give us the right to become animals ourselves."

That was not quite right. You still have 3 attempts.

That was not quite right. You still have 2 attempts.

That was not quite right. You still have 1 attempt.

That wasn't correct.

Great. Everything solved correctly!

That's the right answer!

What do we need? | Your Story Part 2

Helmut Schmidt takes a stand on this public and political discussion in a speech before the Bundestag 

Task 2.5

  • Watch the speech carefully.

  • Write down the two crucial sentences of the speech that best express Schmidt’s attitude from your point of view
Words min.
0/20

Task 2.6
Now it’s time for your story, part 2.
To which extent is Helmut Schmidt taking a political risk with his position?

  • Formulate your opinion in 2-3 sentences.
    Tips for formulating 

Words min.
0/20
1 ×

Phrases you can use:

  •  When you consider the general atmosphere at that time, …
  • Helmut Schmidt was in a situation where…
  •  Even if pressure was being exerted by people on the streets, …

  • Since in a democracy the will of the people should be taken into account…

Material
(S1) Urgent Petition of Eberhard Schleyer

“The petitioner [meaning Hanns Martin Schleyer] invokes… the basic right of equal treatment..., as in the comparable case of the abduction of the CDU delegate… Lorenz from Berlin, the demands of his abductors were complied with and thus his threatened life could be saved…[The government is…] knowingly accepting the assassination…, although it would be in the position to avert this murder…”

Dokumentation der Bundesregierung zur Entführung von Hanns Martin Schleyer. Munich 1977. P. 292f.
(S2) Government Statement

“On the one hand, it is a matter of doing everything humanly possible to save the life of Hanns Martin Schleyer…
On the other hand, we must consider that giving in to the demands of the abductors… would contravene the will to assert penal power.
The eleven detained terrorists whose release is demanded are dangerous criminals, and [one…] must assume that they… would return to pursue their criminal activity…
What is more, we must take into account that [the state] cannot and must not be susceptible to blackmail at will.”

Dokumentation der Bundesregierung zur Entführung von Hanns Martin Schleyer. Munich 1977. P. 304.

(S3) An Academic’s Letter to the Editor

Prof. Wilfried Lange from Düsseldorf:

“We also need to discuss (…) the possibility of reintroducing capital punishment (by means of a constitutional amendment) (…) in cases of blackmail like with Lorenz and Schleyer. No one is likely to doubt that capital punishment here would fulfil a purpose determined by reason: A state that executes its terrorists can no longer be coerced to fly them out to South Yemen. Moreover, an executed criminal bows out from becoming a future assassin.”

Newspaper Die Welt: 29th September, 1977
(S4) Government Politician

An anonymous government official:

“Some of the suggestions [made] must be opposed with the strongest of resistance. Reintroducing the death penalty would be a return to barbaric conditions. I was however gratified to hear that there is great opposition to discuss this issue amongst the opposition as well. There are suggestions (…) that leave me with no constitutional misgivings. But I think we need to be extremely careful not to do what the terrorists are trying to corner us into doing: and that is react in a way that they will then be able to call fascistic.”

Transcribed according to a report on the television magazine Panorama: 19th September, 1977

What do we need?

Baustein 2ist geschafft!

Lass deinen Lehrer wissen, dass du diese Lektion abgeschlossen hast, indem du auf die Schaltfläche rechts klickst.

What are we doing?

Only Do What One
Is Allowed to Do

German Autumn 1977 | Chapter 03

Only Do What One
Is Allowed to Do

The government has to act, and it is massively under pressure. In the end, Helmut Schmidt will have to account for the decisions made. His position seems unwavering, as you just heard him say in his speech to the Bundestag:

“One can only threaten with what one actually wants to carry out and what one actually is allowed to carry out.”

He doesn’t want to infringe upon the basic rights. But the boundaries are not always clear.
How far is it acceptable for the state to go if it doesn’t want to be blackmailed?

In Chapter 03, 3 work steps await you.

Let's go

What are we doing?

03
What are we doing? | Only Do What One Is Allowed to Do

The government tries to get the situation under control. Two experiences play a decisive role in the process.

  1. Already back in 1975, the release of five terrorists was extorted by means of a kidnapping. Their takeoff abroad was broadcast live on television. A media disaster.
  2. The imprisoned terrorists have been exchanging information for years. That probably puts them one step ahead of the police. Is that tolerable?

Was the state following its own laws?
That’s what this is about.
Which topic are you interested in?

  • Choose one.

What are we doing? | “News Blackout” I

The terrorists forward a video of Hanns Martin Schleyer to the government. They demand that it be broadcast on television that same evening.
What would happen if the general public got to see the video?
What decision should the crisis management team make?

Task 3.1
Would have the video shown on television?

  • Spontaneously decide: Yes or No

No, don’t make it public Yes, make it public
What are we doing? | “News Blackout” II

The crisis management team does not release the video. But now they are faced with a question:
How should the government and media deal with information concerning the kidnapping?
The government issues a statement to the press.

Task 3.2

  • Read through the entire statement (S1) once.

Is the government imposing self-censorship?
The press is supposed to be independent. It considers itself a social balance of power by reporting critically.

  •  To which extent do you agree with the following positions?

Censorship, because as soon as the state exerts influence on the press, critical reporting is no longer possible.

I don’t agree. I totally agree.

Not censorship, because it is normal police procedure to withhold information during investigations in order to not disturb the process.

I don’t agree. I totally agree.

Censorship, because you need critical reporting in the case of an abduction

I don’t agree. I totally agree.

Not censorship, because the request is justified. Press work has to take a back seat when human life is at stake.

I don’t agree. I totally agree.
What are we doing? | “Contact Ban” I

The police suspect that the terrorists are secretly plotting the kidnapping from their prison cells. There are reliable indications for this, but no proof.
Should the state respond with a  contact ban ? 
The problem is: There is no explicit law on the basis of which a contact ban could be issued.
Should the Minister of Justice issue a contact ban?

Task 3.1

  • First, make a spontaneous decision: Yes or No

Yes, issue a contact ban No, don’t issue a contact ban
What are we doing? | “Contact Ban” II

The Minister of Justice declares the contact ban immediately after the attack. The lawyers take legal action against it. In order to keep the terrorists in isolation, Parliament is to pass a special law. But some people have doubts.

Task 3.2

  • Read (S1, S2) carefully

  • Highlight the arguments against the contact ban in the sources.

The new law (S3) lists restrictions for its application (in bold).

  •  Read the excerpt of the law (S3) carefully.

  •  Consider: To which extent does it address the concerns of the MPs?

Imagine you are an MP and decide:
Should the Contact Ban Law be passed?

  • Vote Yes or No.
    Give reasons for your decision in 2-3 sentences.

(Erase the sentence stub that you don’t use.)

No, I am voting against the Contact Ban Law because…

Yes, I am voting for the Contact Ban Law because...

 

Words min.
0/30
What are we doing? | Your Story Part 3

You have become familiar with one of two questions where the state considered itself forced to take action.

  1. . In the case of the “contact ban”, it is accused of an unjustified “restriction of civil liberties”.

  2. In the case of the “news blackout”, it is accused of interfering with the press by imposing “self-censorship”.

Did the state go too far in its reactions? Or did it act within a democratic framework?

Aufgabe 3.3
How do you assess the measures taken by the responsible politicians?

  •  Formulate your opinion in 2-4 sentences.
    Tip for Writing 

Words min.
0/20
1 ×

Write in a way that can be understood by someone who has never heard anything about either subject before.

Material
(S1, S2) Positions Against the Contact Ban

The SPD delegate Coppik speaks out against the Contact Ban Law. Here is an excerpt from his speech:
“[Terrorists are to be] isolated from every contact to each other and the outside world. At first, that sounds unproblematic. But the problems become particularly clear when one considers that this regulation would also be valid for those newly arrested after such an attack. … [It] must be made clear that under the new law, say in the case of denunciation , no one, however innocent, will be safe from being arrested and disappearing in a prison for weeks and months […].”

MP Thüsing (SPD) makes a statement:
“In my opinion, such rights [of freedom] can at most be restricted by law in a constitutional state… However they cannot… be fully repealed. We also have to ask if the terrorists are achieving their objective of abolishing the democratic constitutional state bit by bit by means of such laws.”

Thüsing quoted according to: Thomas Wittke (1983): Terrorismusbekämpfung als rationale politische Entscheidung. P. 180.
 

 

 

Coopik: Deutscher Bundestag Sitzungsprotokolle, Sept. 1977, P. 3372
(S3) Excerpt from the “Contact Ban Law”

§ 31
The determination (whether someone is to be isolated) may only pertain to prisoners who have been sentenced according to law for … (terrorist crimes) or against whom an arrest warrant exists (for that reason).

§ 35
The determination according to § 31 loses its effect if it has not been confirmed [by a court] within two weeks after its ordinance…

§ 36
The determination according to § 31 must be revoked as soon as its presuppositions (threat to the life of a person by a terror group, e.g. abduction) are no longer applicable. It loses its effect after the lapse of 30 days at latest… A determination… can be reissued if the presuppositions still apply…

 Gesetz zur Änderung des Einführungsgesetzes zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, 30th September, 1977
(S1) A Government Spokesperson’s Letter to the Press, 8th September, 1977

“Dear Editor-In-Chief,

[…] Due to reasons which I needn’t further explain, I permit myself to urgently request you not to undertake anything in your press coverage that would impact the efforts of the federal security agencies in any way and could contribute to exacerbating the situation of risk.

If […] you have any doubt whether [… a particular] disclosure might fall within the criteria mentioned above, I would like to request you to contact the press office of the Federal Ministry of the Interior. […]

 

Yours respectfully
Klaus Bölling
State Secretary
Federal Press and Information Office“

Dokumentation der Bundesregierung zur Entführung von Hanns Martin Schleyer. 1977. Annex 4, p. 236-237.

What are we doing?

Baustein 3ist geschafft!

Lass deinen Lehrer wissen, dass du diese Lektion abgeschlossen hast, indem du auf die Schaltfläche rechts klickst.

Who are we?

The State at
Its Limits?

German Autumn 1977 | Chapter 04

The State at
Its Limits?

From the beginning, one thing is clear: The state does not intend to be blackmailed. Negotiations take place for appearance only, in order to gain time for an intensive manhunt. The leading strategist is the head of the Federal Criminal Police Office, Horst Herold. The Federal Criminal Police are equipped with state-of-the-art technology. Herold’s tactic works. After two days, Schleyer’s whereabouts are established. But the lead gets lost in the chaos of the manhunt.
And then the cat-and-mouse game goes on for weeks: The kidnappers set an ultimatum and the government professes not to be able to meet it.
After 38 days, the kidnappers stake everything on one card. The situation escalates. How should a state carry the responsibility?

In Chapter 04, 2 work steps await you.

Let's go

Who are we?

04
Who are we? | Mogadishu

The RAF gets help from Palestinian terrorists. On 13th October, 1977, they hijack an aeroplane with 87 people on board. After flying around erratically for four days, they land in Mogadishu. The terrorists want to blow up the aeroplane.

Task 4.1
Helmut Schmidt has to make a decision.
Let the detained terrorists run free – or – storm the aircraft?
Which decision do you think is right?
First, discuss which consequences the decision might have with someone.

  •  Then make a decision.

  •  Account for this decision in 1-2 sentences.
Let the terrorists go free Storm the aircraft

Formulate your opinion here.

Who are we? | Your Story Part 4

In the night of 18th October, 1977, the GSG 9 storms the aeroplane. Three of the four hijackers are shot dead. All passengers survive. The imprisoned terrorists in Stammheim hear about the failed hijacking that same night. Before dawn, they commit suicide.
The next day, Hanns Martin Schleyer is found murdered. That is the end of the German Autumn after 43 days, but not the end of the RAF.
Formulate the fourth part of your story “German Autumn 1977” here.

Task 4.2
In this last part, answer the question:
To which extent does the RAF bring the Federal Republic of Germany to the limits of its ability to act?
Tip 

  • Formulate this part of your story in 3-4 sentences.

Words min.
0/30

Task 4.3
Helmut Schmidt plays an important role in these weeks in 1977.
How do you assess his actions?
You have become familiar with the critical situations. You have got to know his decisions and evaluated his room for manoeuvre yourself.

• Formulate your opinion in 3-4 sentences.

Words min.
0/30
1 ×

Think about the following points one more time. You can refer to them, but don’t repeat them at length:

Chapter 1:

Attack and televised speech

Chapter 2:

Negotiating, death penalty and the Chancellor’s speech

Chapter 3:

Contact ban or news blackout

Chapter 4:

Aeroplane hijacking, suicide of the terrorists, Schleyer’s assassination

2 ×

All the decisions that were made are related to Helmut Schmidt. Here are a few keywords from the module again. Have a look again yourself if you’re uncertain.

Televised speech, speech to the Bundestag (death penalty, negotiating), negotiations for appearance only, intensive manhunt, contact ban, news blackout

Material

Who are we?

Baustein 4ist geschafft!

Lass deinen Lehrer wissen, dass du diese Lektion abgeschlossen hast, indem du auf die Schaltfläche rechts klickst.

Du möchtest das Modul »German Autumn« verlassen?

Write your comments to the teacher

My Story: "German Autumn1977"

Part 1: What threatens the BRD?

 

Part 2: What do the BRD need?

 

Part 3:  What is the BRD doing?

 

Part 4: How ist the BRD?

Comments from the teacher

Um unsere Webseite für Sie optimal zu gestalten und fortlaufend verbessern zu können, verwenden wir Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie der Verwendung von Cookies zu. Die Plattform »Offene Geschichte« befindet sich aktuell noch im Aufbau. Diese Testversion ist für den Webbrowser Chrome optimiert.

Datenschutz

Um unsere Webseite für Sie optimal zu gestalten und fortlaufend verbessern zu können, verwenden wir Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie der Verwendung von Cookies zu. Die Plattform »Offene Geschichte« befindet sich aktuell noch im Aufbau. Diese Testversion ist für den Webbrowser Chrome optimiert.

Datenschutz
Your cookie preferences have been saved.