The Structure of the RAF
What follows are the statements of two of twenty-five RAF prisoners who
commented on the structure of the RAF to counter the hysterical
clichés which were developed through the use of the bought-off
State security witness, Gerhard Müller , as part
of the State’s campaign of psychological warfare.
Statement of Brigitte Mohnhaupt
Stammheim, July 22nd 1976 
Brigitte Mohnhaupt (BM) - …Obviously it is idiotic to say
student, because that has been the case for all of us and it is in the
can only answer, “nothing of the sort.”
The second point is that I won't answer any questions from you, from
the court, from the Federal Prosecution. That would be absurd. That is
not the kind of relationship we have. The exact term for the
relationship between us and the court, and the justice system, and the
Federal Prosecution, is war, and the clearest expression of that is
that four of us are dead, assassinated as prisoners.
So, there is absolutely no possibility of discussion here, at this
level. Why then do we do it, after everything that has happened? Why do
we come here? Why do we participate in the trial?...
Theodor Prinzing (TP) 
- No, that's not the objective. The relationship…
BM - Yes, that is part of it. And that's only the beginning; I
want to start now with what I intend to say here, and I have no
of listening to your nonsense.
The reason why, after everything that has happened, someone from among
us would still come here, after the death of Ulrike , is because we believe it is
necessary, through what we can say here, to reveal the true structure
of the group as it really is and was.
It is not like the psychological warfare fabrication which Müller
put forth in his statements... it is not as he claimed, for he
described it as a practically fascist structure. It is necessary that
this be finally made clear. And this will obviously destroy the entire
lie according to which
Ulrike committed suicide.
It’s not our job to prove if or how Müller lied. That level,
criminology, certainly does not concern us. For us, it is only a
question of substance, of clarifying the essence of the politics and
the nature of the structure as it really was. Certainly, that is very
difficult here, but we will try to describe it simply.
I will now do that. I would like to start with the core of
Müller’s statement, with its goal. The statement regarding the
attacks and his implication, the implication which State Security
determines is necessary in order to secure convictions. Here I must
point out that the strategic conception developed by the RAF in 72 was
directed against the American military presence and American policy in
the Federal Republic ,
and the different tactical and operational actions against these were:
the attack against the CIA Headquarters in Frankfurt, the attack
against the U.S. Army Headquarters in Heidelberg and the kidnapping of
the three City Commanders in Berlin. This decision, this project, was
developed through collective discussions involving everyone in the RAF;
in other words, there was a consensus of all the groups, of each of the
units in the cities, and everyone understood what this meant, the
purpose of these attacks .
As such, we are all responsible for these attacks against the US
military presence in the Federal Republic. That is to say, we are all
responsible for the actions, for the attacks against the Headquarters.
That already says it all, everything about the structure. And it makes
it clear that what Müller, that idiot, is trying to say - that six
people could have carried out all of the attacks - it’s completely
Within the totality of the strategic conception, there was also the
plan to take the Allied Commanders prisoner and exchanging them. I do
not want to talk about the escalation that that would have represented
and the escalation that was encapsulated in this project from the
perspective of the forces of reaction. There is really nothing to say
about it here.
The decision, the idea behind these attacks and our responsibility, is
explained by a key part of our history, the polarization of the student
against the Vietnam War. For us, there was one completely clear way to
understand the limitations of the mobilization for Vietnam, its
objective limitations, what it could accomplish and what it could not
accomplish before it was
crushed and recuperated.
One could say that the experience of the need for armed struggle, the
need to reach the level which corresponds to the situation in which we
ourselves here in the FRG, an American colony, a strategic sub-center
American imperialism - it is this experience which created the RAF. All
of the arguments have already been developed here in the statements. I
believe it is necessary to repeat them again. As far as I’m concerned,
explains the origin of the group.
Concretely, regarding the City Commanders, the kidnapping had, from a
material perspective, the goal of freeing the prisoners. The goal was
arrange an exchange of the City Commanders for the prisoners who had
been arrested, and who had been subjected to isolation and torture.
Meaning that, for the group, it was objectively necessary to free the
prisoners. An exchange was the only way.
So far as I know, Müller didn't talk about the Berlin City
Commanders, except in his gossip to Stern ; he left this out of his
statement. The desired goal was to completely suppress the politics of
the RAF in 1972. It's clear that
Berlin was a decisive event for us, and relatively difficult to pull
difficult operationally. Three City Commanders; three, which signified
large commandos were necessary to realize our goal. The action was
in the execution phase, but as a result of the arrests it could not be
out. Andreas  was
about two weeks before the chosen date, and as a result, obviously, a
of the infrastructure was smashed. That is to say, we couldn't be
whether the part of the infrastructure that was involved in the action
also been compromised. There was also the fact that the American City
was heavily guarded. The timing and coordination was difficult. For us
was no longer possible to carry out this action.
This is important, because that is what we – and Andreas and Gudrun  in particular - were
prepared to do. It is for precisely this reason that the State Security
Müller talk anymore, so that they can say that Andreas and Gudrun
in the attacks against the Police Headquarters .
It’s disgusting and it's idiotic. This doesn't correspond at all to the
facts. Andreas and Gudrun were, during this period, with me in Berlin,
and we didn't organize that thing down there.
His lies are demented; as if just four or five people could carry out
all of these attacks against the FRG. It is not even necessary to dwell
on this, because it is obvious to everyone how ridiculous this is, and
goal is clear to see. So, this entire travesty, these five accused, to
everything is directly attributed, and of whom only three remain . All of this
the same line, by which the same spectacle, in effect, the entire line
applied, becomes clear. It is psychological warfare carried out by the
Prosecutor and the court. There are no contradictions within it, and,
it cannot have any.
Müller says about Munich  - I believe he said it was Andreas and Holger who
did it. The fact is that neither of them participated. I have already
said that at that point Andreas was in Berlin, and these actions were
by groups that were in Munich. Finally - now we can say it – the RAF
at the time organized in the following way: there were eight groups
in six cities, and specifically two strong groups in two cities. One of
these groups was in Munich. The groups, the different units, were
integrated into a logistical system. There was contact between the
different groups for
discussions, but they were autonomous in their decisions regarding
The precise objective, the planning, the verification, the moment of
action, was left up to the different groups, and that is the only way
it could be. And obviously that is how it worked ; we didn't know
anything concrete in advance about these actions. However, even if we
had known, we wouldn't have prevented them, because, yeah, it's not a
simple thing to stop a group from doing what it has decided to do. In
fact, we couldn't have prevented it,
neither in terms of the underlying perspective nor technically; it was
impossible given the conditions. It was clear, the sense of these
actions was clear; they were a response to the fact that combatants
were shot in the street, that is to say, Petra and Tommy . It would never have been our
intention to prevent them.
By means of such implications, Müller is trying to obscure the
strategic conception, to completely exclude it, to destroy it by
idiotic implications. The strategic conception was defined from the
beginning as opposing the American military presence, opposing the
occupation by the US Army, opposing total political and economic
dependence vis-a-vis the USA. The goal of his statement is to distort
this; it attempts to repudiate the politics of the group;
it attempts to obliterate them.
There is still more. When he claims - I could perhaps go into this more
later in the light of the particular questions that you will ask me;
now I will only do so in a general way. For instance, the statement
suggests that Ulrike carried out the attack against the Springer
 over the
of Andreas or Gudrun or separately from the group, and the claim that
led to a split, or, at least, to conflict between members, terror, or I
don't know what it was that the pig said exactly. The truth is that
when the Hamburg action was carried out - and this was already
clarified during this trial - we knew nothing, precisely because of our
structure; it was an autonomous action carried out in an autonomous way
by the Hamburg groups.
After the action, there was a lot of criticism from other groups. As a
result, Ulrike went to Hamburg to find out what was going on and to let
know how this had happened, because the RAF, in its basic
understanding, never conceived of actions where there was a risk that
civilians could be hurt. It was an essential principle in all
discussions and in the criticism addressed to the Hamburg group, that
they carried out the action without realizing
that Springer, naturally, wouldn't evacuate the building. So given
it had not been well prepared. That is why Ulrike was sent to Hamburg
that time, to clarify this, to find out what had happened. After doing
she formulated the statement about this action, in which everything was
the entire process, the warnings, Springer not evacuating, etc. Which,
that what Müller said, yeah, we know that already, and we know the
goal. What he claims now, regarding Ulrike, that she had or could have
to carry out actions that the others objected to, it is completely
but it fits in perfectly to the propaganda line, “the tensions”, etc.
purpose is to legitimize Ulrike’s murder. The claim that there were
is a story that goes back - according to what Müller has said here
to Hamburg, to the organization of the group in 71-72. It is purely and
simply a fabrication that they are trying to put together here, and
one objective: to legitimize the murder… 
TB - Good, now I must tell you that your opinions and value
judgments are not relevant here. I cannot accept your allegations that
there has been a murder here. You will force me to apply the
BM - Of course. There is still a point with regards to Berlin.
When Müller claims that Andreas ordered the actions there, or even
that he pushed people, I don’t know exactly how he put it, but it’s
because the action against the City Commanders was impossible before
others were carried out. So there was no discussion regarding the
in Berlin. If Müller says this, it can only mean one thing -
he already exposed the action against the City Commanders in Stern,
and clearly he knew about them, but obviously not the concrete details
by maintaining his claim , the political line was to be destroyed.
all, no political line is to be found in these lies, and naturally not
That is all I want to say about these actions right now.
Defense Attorney Temming (DAT) - And precisely regarding the
fact that Müller, the prosecution witness Müller, stated that
the attack against Springer was conceived and prepared by Ulrike
(The Prosecution objects to the question because of the use of the
term “prosecution witness.”)
DAT - I will rephrase my question. Do you know if Ulrike was in
Hamburg at this time, and do you know if there were tensions between
Ulrike and Andreas regarding this point or others, or, in a general
way, what the state of their relationship was?
BM - I’ve already said that there was a general criticism after
this action, that is to say, between all…
TP - We don’t want to hear any more repetition here.
BM - But, really, stop it; you don't even know what I’m going
It is precision that he wants. So, perhaps I will repeat the core of
the issue. What happened is what I have already said: Ulrike left, at
that time, to find out what had happened and then, based on what she
found out, based on checking the facts in Hamburg, she formulated a
To be more precise: she was in Berlin and in mid-May, roughly, she went
to Stuttgart. She was in Berlin to prepare the kidnapping. She
participated in the planning and organization.
Afterwards, she went to Stuttgart to do another important job. And if
she did it, it was because she understood a lot about it; simply
she could do it well. It is necessary to obtain material for discussion
that is the context in which Ulrike worked, the organization of
on the international level. That is to say that she attempted to make
known the discussions taking place on the left, specifically on the
international level with foreign groups. At that time, the discussion
about the guerrilla in the factories was unfolding. There were attempts
of that type in Italy, a certain tactic that was possible in Italy, as
a result of specific conditions there, but which we thought was not
possible here. And that was precisely what she wanted to do at that
time, to organize the entire process of discussion from this angle,
within the perspective of an international strategy. That was why she
went to Stuttgart. I think that Andreas called her in Stuttgart right
after what happened in Hamburg because of the large amount of criticism
we received, and she left immediately for Hamburg to clarify the
situation. This is, I believe, how it unfolded. In saying this, I am
also answering the question as to whether there were differences, or
whatever the hell, a
split. The facts show very clearly and absolutely without a shadow of a
that that is a complete fabrication.
DAT - Another question. It concerns the statements of the
Prosecution witness, Gerhard Müller, who claims that there were
plans to liquidate Siegfried Hausner .
Do you know anything regarding this subject, and do you know if
have left the group, or how it unfolded?
BM - Of course there were people who left. It would be untrue
to say otherwise. Contradictions develop within a group engaged in the
process that this one is engaged in. As such, in the process of the
struggle, there are obviously contradictions, and there are people who
decide at a certain point to no longer do the work. They’ve had enough,
they decide to return, to go back, or they do other things, even though
everyone knows perfectly well that this isn’t possible, that it is a
lie, when one has already been engaged in a practice such as ours. Such
a decision can only be a step backwards, which always signifies a step
backwards into shit.
There were people who left, but there was never a question of
liquidation at any time. There were departures involving people who
could no longer do the work, who no longer wanted to do it, because
they understood that it
meant illegality, which is what armed struggle always means. It was a
completely free decision on their part. Leaving was the right thing for
them to do.
It would be stupid for them to stay, because there wouldn't, in any
be any way to engage in a shared practice.
There were also departures that we ourselves decided upon. There were
people who knew that we were ending relations with them for clear
In the final analysis, naturally, it was for the same reasons, because,
at a given moment, it was no longer possible to have a shared practice.
They do other things, conscious that they can never again engage in
Maybe it should be explained how things would happen when someone
decided to stop. It always happened as follows: it was always
determined in the course of a discussion involving the entire group,
the unit in which the person
participated, which is to say that everyone took part, or at least the
everyone who could, under these conditions, take part.
This took place in the context of discussions. It wasn't done in a
heavy-handed way. Each time there was an evolution which allowed the
one concerned, in the same way as all of the others, as each person
within the group, to understand that the point had been reached where
it was no longer possible to struggle together, the time had come for
him to make a decision; to change, if he still wants to, if he has the
courage, if he can do it, obviously, with the help of all of the others
- or else he can leave. At that point, he is free to leave, and there
is no pressure, because it's his decision, because he understands this,
and because it involves a process in which everyone is involved.
Because every departure or exclusion, if it isn’t carried out in a
manner, creates hate, and, as such, sooner or later, the guy will end
visiting the cops. The group never threw anyone out. It never happened
way. That isn’t how the structure of the group works.
This is something else that completely discredits Müller’s entire
story about Hausner, the liquidation story. That is to say, naturally,
such a thing is theoretically possible - that’s not the issue. This is
simply a fact when one struggles in illegality. But within the entire
process which the group undertook in 72, it would have been an error,
it would have been in contradiction with the situation. As regards
Hausner, it is even more absurd, because it is completely false that he
wanted to leave. There was absolutely no reason, given who he was,
given what he had done, that would have led us to force him to leave or
to have liquidated him. It's absolutely ridiculous. Nothing would
justify it. Obviously, everyone makes mistakes, but nobody had the
arrogance or the absolutism to say, “Me, I don't make mistakes.”
In any case, that was the situation within the group. How could we have
said, “Now it is necessary that he leave, and if he doesn't leave the
country, then…?” Müller said that if he couldn't go to Holland, if
he couldn't be evacuated to a foreign country, then it was necessary,
as an emergency solution, to simply liquidate him. Only State Security
could invent such things. Such a thing could never strengthen the
structure, the group, the individuals, but on the contrary would weaken
it, would destroy it.
If such a thing could happen in the group, how would it ever again be
possible for people to struggle, to have the courage, to find their
To liquidate someone who has struggled with us, as a first resort,
simply because there is no longer a place for him - that is a
completely ridiculous fabrication.
I can give another example: the story of the woman in Berlin, Edelgart
Gräfer, I believe - in any case it was Gräfer - who denounced
half a dozen people. She betrayed the people. She gave their address.
what happened? What did we do? She got a slap in the mouth and was hit
the throat with a placard. So, I think these facts speak for
themselves: when someone denounces people, in effect lines them up
against the wall, because we never know what could happen when the cops
break into an apartment, and this person only receives a slap in the
head, then it is all the more absurd to think that someone who has
never betrayed anyone could, as the result
of a situation where everything culminates, as Müller describes
in searches and whatever, in arrests, could simply be shot down. It's
out of the question.
And, finally, the proof, I might say, that all of that is impossible:
Siegfried Hausner led the Commando Holger Meins , and it is out of the question
it could have been otherwise, could have been done differently. Quite
he made the arrangements, he did it himself, which clarifies the nature
of the structure. I believe this clarifies everything. How could he
done it? How could he have struggled in a reality like the one
DAT - Another thing: the Prosecution witness, Müller,
claimed that that Andreas Baader wanted a hierarchical structure, that
Andreas Baader wanted control. I would like to know how this could have
been, how it would have been possible given the structure of the group
and given the general relationship of the group to the question of
BM - Was there ever anyone who wanted to take leadership…
Federal Prosecutor Zeis (FPZ) - It seems to me that this
problem, whether or not there was a hierarchical structure, was already
the object of a long statement this morning…
BM - I want to introduce some concrete aspects…
FPZ - The question…
BM - I want to introduce some concrete facts about Andreas.
FPZ - Enough! Be quiet when I speak!
BM - Oh, really, stop talking drivel!
You talked about the "alleged leadership" of the group. No. If someone
had claimed to be a leader, then he would only have made a fool of
himself. So, the claim that someone wanted to be in charge is, quite
simply, ridiculous. So, the reality, as it was and as we understood it,
was that leadership could be a function and, in certain situations,
could be necessary, for example, during actions. That is how we defined
it, and, naturally, it was Andreas who assumed this function. If he
assumed it, it was simply because he could, in a very precise way,
develop an understanding of situations, and based
on his analysis of various situations, he could develop an approach. He
could outline a certain approach, he could establish the line, the
tactical and strategic line. But this was never simply the development
or the solitary decision of a single person. The concept, the project
developed by a member, is submitted for discussion by everyone, because
everyone participates concretely in the practice and, as such, also in
establishing the line. Everyone must discuss the line, understand it,
contribute to its development, and everyone must be able to make
decisions in any situation. Because in certain situations, we are
alone, and if we don’t understand the line then nothing will work. What
Andreas did was determined, precisely established and developed, by
everyone in the course of discussions. And from the moment the line was
established, Andreas, like everyone else, naturally, had to rigorously
follow that line, was, so to speak, tied to the line. Of course, this
wasn't a constraint, because everyone understood that it was necessary,
that it was correct, a correct tactic, for him, as for the others.
Later, this was completely blown out of proportion. That is to say that
leadership always has a certain function, and, naturally, for those who
use it, as for those who assume it, it is only tolerable if it is not
domination, if it is entirely defined by what everyone wants. In any
event, the principle in the organization is free will. That is to say
that everyone must be able and must want to do it. We called this the
cadre line, that everyone can arrive, whether they have been in the
RAF for a long time or not, at an equal footing, that is to say, that
everyone can do everything themselves. This is not this stupid thing
Müller speaks here, with his open group, which, in practice, would
mean that everyone participates in all aspects of the work process.
like this exists. His statement is totally false and is meant to
that everyone knew everything, and thus, that Müller knows
But Müller knows very little, because Müller wasn't cadre. It
simply an invention on his part, with the specific goal pursued by
TP - So, another value judgment?
BM - No, I’m not finished yet. One moment…
TP - Keep to the facts which you know and which you can
BM - This is precisely one. I know that he wasn't cadre.
TP - That you can talk about, but the rest is a personal
opinion. Has the question been answered in a satisfactory way, Mr.
BM - No, I'm not finished yet…
TP - Tell me, have you got a dossier prepared for each question
put to you here?
BM - Obviously, I've… I've reflected about what I have heard
here, of course.
TP - Do you know the questions that are going to be put to you?
BM - How would you expect me to know them?
TP - If you have an idea…
BM - I've read about the Müller affair in the press…
TP - You've already seen the files concerning Müller?
BM - I've read the Müller statements in the press. Listen
to what I say! And on the basis of what I know about Müller, on
basis of what I know about him from Info , etc., from the Stern
I have some idea. I've clarified some points myself, the points where
describes the structure of the group. I will specifically state that
fascist; what he describes is a fascist group structure, so it's clear
me what I can say here in my role as a witness.
So, the cadre line. That is to say that everyone must be able to assess
things themselves. Naturally, that is concretely related to leadership,
which is to say that everyone must be able to assume leadership, which
means that there can never be domination, that leadership is defined as
a function, but it can disappear. That, quite simply, is a precondition
for continuity; so that if a cadre is arrested, we are not immobilized
disoriented, but people can make decisions themselves, can continue,
there isn’t a rupture, there isn't a collapse. That is necessary for
and as such, necessary for the entire politic, for the entire practice.
In this regard, we once said that the guerrilla is a hydra, that is to
that it always develops new heads. That’s the goal. There is something
Info, which the Federal Prosecution certainly has, very
so they know full well that there was never a hierarchy - which
what I think very well, something Holger  said: “Everyone is the collective.” That is
I think. And something Ulrike said during her Berlin trial: “The
guerrilla is the group.” Meaning that everyone contributes and gets
something out of the entire learning process, which obviously is
ongoing, which is practice. And it is only in this way that we learn,
by this practice, that is to say, in this confrontation, because it
demands, it forces, learning. It forces us to change. It is in this way
that “the guerilla is the group.”
Messengers and bosses, superiors and underlings, as Müller
presented it, all of that is antagonistic to a structure like ours, to
armed politics, to the guerrilla. It resembles the structure that spews
out blueprints for psychological warfare, the State Security structure.
We have defined what leadership is for us. “Leadership: what it must be
is a concrete perception of the situation and how to transcend it; the
objectives and their transmission within the structure of the fighting
group.” That is to say what we have learned is that leadership in the
guerrilla consists of permanent initiative, the imposition of our
politics, of armed proletarian politics.
It is not "leadership" which constitutes the guerrilla group. Rather,
it appears only as a function required by the group’s learning and
working processes; so it is born of and from the group's practice. When
everything goes well, it brings together everyone’s initiatives and
experiences, developing a collective process which creates the
continuity and the capacity to act. That is the only way it can work.
To repeat what has been said before: the basis of all of this is the
relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, between will and
necessity, to bring them together and carry them into action. It is
only in this way - a simple question of experience - that subjectivity
is actually possible. Who you are, that you, the person who struggles,
the subject, that you become who you are and who you want to be, that
is really the point of struggle. That is what we are trying to
establish here; liberty is only possible in a struggle for liberation.
DAT - How can this be reconciled with the power to give orders,
which supposedly existed and which was supposedly exercised by Andreas
according to the statement of the Prosecution witness? He gave the
I believe, of an order to shoot, that all members of the RAF, in the
of an arrest, had to defend themselves with arms.
BM - Yeah. I’ll split my answer into two parts.
On the one hand, there is the relationship, the understanding that the
group had regarding orders, how the group defined this, and how they
defined the entire process, and defining this was a process for us.
And, after that, very concretely, regarding the order to shoot.
I’ll speak in a general way about orders. We saw the order as a
collective decision in the execution phase. So, during the action,
there were orders. It is simple, it is a military necessity, and it is
also correct, it is functional. And it’s precisely because it is
functional that it has nothing to do with coercion, because the action
is a collective decision. It was discussed
in advance. It was decided by everyone, and everyone had a precise job
do, which everyone did. And orders are only a question of coordination.
That is one thing. The other is the power to give orders. The entire
scenario described by Müller, the one regarding Andreas, the boss
with absolute power…
So, for example, according to Müller's statements there was an
order to shoot. I will simply say that this is a distillation of
psychological warfare since 1970, which claims that the RAF members
have an order to shoot. About which the RAF has often spoken, about
exactly this and precisely on this point. But I will speak about it
even more precisely. It has been repeated in the media since Hamburg,
since Petra was shot, that there is an order to shoot, as such, cannon
fodder, human material sent to the front by some people in the shadows.
That is the story. And Müller…
TP - You must now answer the question about the order to shoot,
BM - I'm now talking…
TP - …the defense attorney. What you are presenting here has
nothing to do with the question.
BM - Yeah, well I disagree.
I’m in the process of talking about the order to shoot.
In reality, Müller knows very well that there was never an order
to shoot. There was none and no one among us received it. Why does he
claim this? I just said, according to the expression used here, that
that has “nothing to do with the subject,” that a distillation of
psychological warfare is to be justified by this statement, to make it
appear that this is true, with the goal of destroying the group.
Defense Attorney Heldmann (DAH) - Müller claimed here, in
his role as a witness, that the structure of the Red Army Faction was
follows; Baader as the main leader, then a core membership, then simple
members and, finally, marginal members. Can you confirm these
BM - I’ve explained, in this regard, how we understood it and how
it was; many leaders and the cadre line, how we developed it, how it
developed within the entire process. That was the goal, and it was
that way in most groups that had been together for some time.
Concerning members on the margins, etc., what can be said is that there
were, of course, contacts with people who weren't completely integrated
into the group. But this is completely correct, because the RAF is, it
not be forgotten, a military organization and not a neighborhood
That is to say that contacts are determined according to precise
according to political and operational criteria. That, for example, was
part of it. You see very well, again very clearly, the nonsense of this
claim about an “open group.”
That things could be organized so that everybody had access to all
information or took part in all operations, that is obviously not
possible. Not everyone needs to know everything, and it is obvious why
not. Everyone has the information that is necessary for him to do what
he has to do. That is to say that it is the function which determines
this. To do anything else would be idiotic, absolutely out of the
question, and everyone understood very well why it wasn't necessary.
There is a very open discussion developed within the groups and between
the groups about strategy and tactics, as well as theory and analysis,
but which remains very clear on principles of organization. It is an
collective process of all those who struggle. It is correct that I only
what concerns me, because one must, naturally, deal with the fact that
one is arrested, there can be traitors, one could break under pressure,
could be tortured. We know this, and it is, quite simply, the condition
all illegal military organizations to act as is required, as a function
the conditions. Otherwise it is a collective of idiots.
For a group that wants to struggle, all this rubbish about an "open
group" would never come to anything, because it would signify acting
like a bunch of ignoramuses, like people who don’t know at all what
they're doing. Openness is a very good thing, open discussions, open,
frank relationships, and that is also how it happens, but never
concerning military details; that is to say that the political
structure is open and collective, and within the commandos there is
also a collective style of work, but the question of military details,
of contacts, etc. is strictly functional. A conspiratorial…
TP - It is not a question of asking what the term "open" means. I
believe, Mr. Heldmann, regarding the question which you've asked three
it has been answered adequately…
BM - …open group, as a principle of organization for an
illegal group, simply does nothing but support a stupid denunciation.
DAH - Are there members who exercise control over other
members? That is to say, does there exist a control function within the
even the control of a group?
BM - What do you mean a "control function"? I don’t really
DAH - I can’t say exactly either, I have page 10,221 from the
minutes of the main trial here, an extract from Müller’s
more, these core members, these members of the leadership, exercised a
permanent control.” And another example,
“Take, for example, one of these people in Stuttgart, one of these core
members” - as Mr. Müller calls them - “he was always phoning
to keep the situation there under control and to see if people were
behaving as they should.”
BM - Oh, the telephone. This example speaks for itself.
Information is simply necessary to be able to act, to be able to
determine the overall situation, and that, obviously, also goes on
between us, between the different groups. That's entirely clear,
because to be able to intervene on certain points, it is necessary to
know what’s going on in other cities. And if
those who were in Stuttgart called Berlin, it was completely normal.
did it many times every day, when we were going to do something
or when we had to coordinate certain things. To speak of control in
matter again proves that the statement is total twaddle.
DAH - Are there or have there ever been lawyers who were
members of the RAF?
BM - Lawyers who were members of the RAF? That's more or less
the same thing - we can only laugh, because we do not have close
relationships with lawyers. Lawyers are lawyers, and, as lawyers, they
of the RAF. And we certainly don’t want to have lawyers in the RAF, and
we never had any. It’s a contradiction in itself. If someone was a
he wouldn’t want to be a member of the RAF, unless he was no longer a
because he would have to make a complete break with his job. Lawyers
part of the justice system, even if they criticize it. That is obvious.
our relationship with lawyers has been and is - and it’s odd - shitty.
really don't feel like going into more detail , because it's very
always the same thing Those guys usually have their own interests,
agendas, and a fear which they rationalize politically. Most of them
to pull the wool over the prisoners’ eyes. So, there are always
DAT - A question regarding Info. The Prosecution
witness, Müller, claims that Info served to achieve
criminal ends, internally and externally, but mostly outside the
prisons. Could you speak a little
bit about the purpose of Info? Secondly, could you specify if
an obligation to participate in Info? And thirdly, in
connection with Info, was any pressure exercised by some
prisoners over other prisoners via Info?
BM - Info was the total opposite of that. It is the
only possibility - that is how we conceived of and understood it - the
only possibility, in general, of social interaction between isolated
prisoners. Even if it was
only a surrogate, only letters and paper. But it was the only
possibility for political discussion, political information and,
obviously, orientation. There was absolutely no hierarchical structure
or anything of that sort.
Regarding what Müller said about Info 1 - I don't remember
exact terms he used anymore, that there were different categories, that
had to pass from one category to another, as such, a sort of careerist
ladder. That's absurd.
Info 1 was everyone organized in the RAF, and was simply
Info 2, practically speaking, didn't exist. It should be
produced one day, but, in reality, it never existed. And Info 2,
never produced, was the one that functioned as the Info for
strike and all of the prisoners who participated in the hunger strike.
see absolutely no hierarchy in that, no categories. It simply came from
different groups. The first was made up of members of the RAF. The
included many other prisoners, like those from the June 2nd Movement  and guerrilla groups
Hamburg and Munich, all of those who participated in the hunger strike,
that was no small number. It was impossible to simply short-circuit it.
was two different levels of discussion, of relationships within the
groups. The short-circuit was in the attempt to present a united
which had, in general, no real purpose.
And Info 3 had nothing to do with hierarchy. Info 3 consisted
of information, that is to say, newspaper articles, analyses, articles
on political economy, etc., in short, basic information pieces.
Everyone who was in prison and wanted it for their work received it. To
say that Info 3 was in any way less important is complete
nonsense. It represented
a certain form of political information, the media, press reports,
reports, as such, everything we needed to have an idea of what was
on, and finally economic analyses which we’ve developed as well. That
the content of Info 3.
Regarding those that… How did you say it?
DAT - Was there an obligation to participate…
BM - Oh, I see. The sense of Info, its entire purpose,
as we determined it, was as a means to resist isolation. We have said
every sentence that a prisoner writes in Info is like an act;
sentence is an action. And it was this way for the prisoners. We had
no possibility to do anything in isolation, except to use this means of
communication. And that was really a radical process of
for those who had not previously experienced one. Because, through Info,
everyone knew what everyone else was writing. In general, it was
different from a hierarchical structure. Everyone wrote what he
what was, for him, the problem, the point at which he couldn't progress
alone, always attempting to give a political appreciation, attempting
understand the situation and the conditions, so as to be able to resist
resist the annihilation of the group by isolation. And, in this way, it
obviously did play a role in which everyone exercised control on
else. But that is a good thing. It is not at all bad. It is not
but the negation of domination. I would even say it was an attempt to
a structure in prison, on a completely different level, as the total
of the fascist structure, and, as such, against the entire machine that
wants to make us disappear. As such, Info was simply a way for
to continue to struggle, even at this level and in the only way
for a prisoner kept in isolation, by the effort of analysis, by
It is obviously a very limited possibility, and the example of its
is the hunger strike. It is, quite simply, our ultimate means of
otherwise, we would not have to hunger strike against isolation...
DAT - I have another question regarding the role, or the
alleged role, of discipline.
(Prinzing disallowed the question.)
DAT - We could, perhaps, better explain this in the context of
the hunger strike. What purpose did the hunger strike have? During the
hunger strike was there an effort to use Info to pressure any
of the prisoners on hunger strike? So, first, what was the purpose of
the hunger strike?
And, second, was Info used during the hunger strike as a means
discipline to prevent anyone from breaking the hunger strike?
BM - Info was never a means of discipline, not during
the hunger strike and not at any other time - coming from who, from who
really, each of us or what? Info wasn't a whip to keep people
in line, but a weapon that each of us needed, because it was a means of
communication, even if it was only paper. Perhaps it is ridiculous to
speak of a weapon, but that’s how it was. There is really no other way
And specifically, during the hunger strike, there was obviously no
pressure. The hunger strike is a practical example of the fact that no
pressure can be exercised, because otherwise the actions would be
impossible. We discussed the hunger strike for a long time between
ourselves. Should we do it or not? What did the group think about the
conditions? Which is to say, each member of the group. The Federal
Prosecution seized all of the material relating to this, so obviously
they know all of this full well. All of their claims are slanderous
lies, but otherwise of no importance. In any case, the hunger strike
was the product, the result, of the discussion. And in the discussion,
each person clarified issues, such as “Can I and do I want to hunger
strike?” Because, we knew full well what it signified, that the
situation could lead to our death. That is to say that this was and
always is a part of what
it means to struggle: one can die, one can be defeated. Our experience
that it can’t be any other way in prison. In any case, that was an
decision for everyone, and it could only work that way. This can be
by what was written in Info itself, for everyone wrote whether
wanted to do it and why, if he felt he could do it, and, obviously,
he agreed with the tactic. In a general way, whether the hunger strike
be a tool, could be a weapon for the prisoners. We drew the conclusion
it was one for us, a modest one, because we had no others. And
the thirst strike, where it goes much faster, it was entirely clear.
example, Ulrike's statement, in Berlin, that we would thirst strike if
was again denied water, as had happened at Schwalmstadt. Obviously he
have died. All of these decisions were taken collectively. It was also
simple. We can even prove it, but that is certainly not what we want to
It doesn't interest us to enter into legal arguments to destroy the
and the falsifications of the press and State Security. We can show
we were all in agreement, and that those who backed down during the
strike, as a result of the total confrontation it represented, are
also evidence that this was not done under duress. They stopped, and
signified for them that they didn't want any more of these politics, of
form of struggle that these politics - the guerrilla - necessarily
without which it is not imaginable. That is the conclusion, that they
want any more of this confrontation, that they want to live at any
even if that only means to continue to vegetate, like an animal, like a
in isolation. Not the struggle, not rebellion, not revolutionary war,
no longer their thing.
Müller himself backed down. He backed down and he betrayed us.
Look at him and you can see how collapse occurred in his case. He only
gazes at his navel and doesn't develop another politic. That is the
price he sold himself for. He wanted a deal, and now he has one. In
this, he is completely consumed by State Security. The result of three
years of brainwashing, and there are letters from him where he says as
much. Now it's a completely different story.
DAT - One more question to finish. You have said that the
hunger strike was a means of struggle, if only a limited one; Info was
as such also a weapon. Fighting against what and a weapon against what?
BM - The hunger strike? Against the conditions of detention,
against extermination by isolation; because it was absolutely necessary
to do something against that, to fight against that, and because this
struggle was the only one possible in these conditions. Experience
showed us that everything attempted on the legal level, for example the
complaints, and everything I know about from all of these years,
remained absolutely ineffective. Because the fact is, as I said at the
beginning, the relationship is war.
The entire machine created by the State Security, the Secret Service,
the media, and the political justice system carries out a war; it is a
function of counterinsurgency. And the legal means that remain are
obviously completely useless, mere trappings. This quickly became
clear. It was clear for us with Astrid , the first to
be really destroyed by the dead wing. We didn't have, the prisoners
didn't have, any other means except the hunger strike, an action
carried out from a position which was really an extremely defensive
position, but carried
out collectively, with determination, on the basis of the decision that
must break the means employed against the prisoners: the isolation. It
obviously also a weapon, or, in any case, it could become one.
FPZ - You earlier asserted, in response to a question from the
honorable attorney, Dr. Heldmann, I believe, that there was no order to
shoot within the group. So, I would like to ask you why then, at the
of your arrest, you were carrying a weapon in perfect working order, as
such, ready to shoot? Would you respond to this question?
BM - Oh, nonsense, no.
TP - What legal basis do you invoke?
BM - Absolutely no legal basis. After everything I've just
said, this is really too ridiculous.
Statement from Helmut Pohl 
Helmut Pohl - To start with those two there in green should go
away. I already noticed this morning that those two can read my notes.
well, I can't talk if I’m wedged into my chair. 
(The guards are placed between Pohl and Prinzing.)
Of course, make a wall. I can see I'm not going to get the opportunity
that Klaus Jünschke had yesterday. 
I will start with what I've directly participated in since I've been in
the group, which was around the beginning of 1971. I want to talk about
this period because it is essential to understanding the structure of
RAF. The entire dimension which one develops in the struggle against
system, against the imperialist State, this could not have been
if our politics, the struggle for liberation, had not been realized
the beginning of the organization itself, that is to say, within the
It is on this basis that the guerilla can be effective. It will not be
necessary to return to this point. That is how it grows; everyone
approaches it in this
way; everyone is put in contact with their practice in a way that
to clarify it and begin to struggle. The goal is that everyone
that can't be achieved by directives and orders or whatever other
bullshit Müller testified to.
On the contrary, what was clear was the impulse, the resolve, quite
simply, the search for something new, precisely in opposition to this
shit here. That was what made it attractive and created the base of
support. This existed from the beginning, and there is no way it could
have been otherwise.
That is why the entire attempt here to falsely attribute, on the basis
of the statements fabricated by Müller, a hierarchical structure
to the RAF, a police structure, is quite simply absurd. But that is
unimportant. What is going on is that this fabrication is the central
element of the psychological war that has been waged against us for six
years. As a countermeasure, as a means of warfare, with the goal of
putting a picture of the structures in people’s minds; structures that
they know, that they live in day after day and that they hate. And
Müller is, in reality, only an instrument of this counterstrategy
carried out against us, someone bought and force fed
by State Security, with the goal of giving his stupid projections a
vague air of authenticity.
That it is war, and the reasons it is carried out as such, exposes the
illegitimacy of this State and the fact that it can only obtain loyalty
...because it cannot continue to obtain this loyalty except by
repression; for example, the 71-72 dragnet, the torture is a clear
example, the centrally organized campaign of lies against us in the
media, with the demagogic appeals of the politicians, and, finally, the
open use of police terror after the poll in the summer of 71 indicated
that there was massive support in the country for the RAF’s struggle,
that it was understood despite the various attempts at anticommunist
brainwashing, because the people have discovered and recognized what
This is what the psychological war is directed against, with its
campaigns of disorientation and its psychological actions, such as the
Stuttgart bomb threat .
It is an attempt to destroy the guerrilla’s moral integrity and to
neutralize the effect
of its politics and orientation, to erase the example of the
offensive now before it has time to take root in the minds of people as
a source of hope.
It is enough to simply understand where we are: the FRG, the
sub-center, the second most powerful imperialist State, where
repression is total, where there are structures of manipulation and
repression which were previously unknown here, even in the times of
And, on the other hand, to fight against that, a structure is necessary
that excludes all of that, because nothing less will do.
It is necessary to clarify what that means for each individual at the
point in their existence when they begin to struggle, begin to organize
in the guerrilla, that for all who do this, it means, above all,
against all forms of domination, force and hierarchy.
What is needed, in the way of will and effort, to undertake the
struggle - to organize and, above all, to assure its continuity - rules
out all of that bullshit, pure and simple. Or, to put it another way,
we couldn't carry out the struggle for liberation, for freedom, if we
weren't free, if we were operating within a structure that wasn't free.
That is precisely what I
learned from the beginning of my involvement in this group, before
being arrested in 71 for the first time.
Specifically, in 1971 there was a process of collective discussion in
illegality, within which the discussion regarding strategy, developing
line, involved everyone. It was open. Open within the group and open
the outside. There was a very broad discussion with other groups,
legal groups, and with individuals from legal anti-imperialist
And, of course, the discussion also addressed the reaction that the
of the RAF was receiving. That is to say, how our politics, our
were assessed and understood by these groups. Openness is, in any
an important element of the structure, and I want again to add,
to what others say and openness to every other person.
In any case, what Müller said, that the RAF was an "open group,"
in no way represents us, represents the structure of the organization.
is only a collection of things that reflect accurately the goal of this
entire fabrication; that way he wants to show that his information is
accurate and that he knows something about the 72 offensive.
It's nonsense. When a group prepares its actions, only those who are
directly participating know, only those who carry them out. That is
clear within a group that struggles illegally. It is completely
unnecessary to talk about it. It is, however, necessary to talk about
the whole political line, how the relationship between the collective
and the individual was understood not as a contradiction, but both as a
goal and as a precondition. That is to say that there was the struggle,
and it was based on this structure. For example, when someone has
certain concrete tasks, he develops them himself, he acquires, for
himself, the necessities, thinks and pursues his reflections himself;
so, if someone takes on a certain task, he does what he must to be
I will, perhaps, put this another way: that which we often refer to as
discussion - such as that irresolvable discussion about strategy,
completely divorced from practice, that goes on in many sects , where
everyone simply offers an abstract point of view and maintains it
against the others - that kind of discussion has no value for us. There
is a simple unity: politics and struggle. And the discussion unfolds as
it must. Each politic is only possible in that way as a part of the
development of the structure of the group, the totality of the
development of the structure of the group, the totality of the
organization, and of its analysis. That means that the structure is
formed out of each process, in the general work process of the group.
is where collectivization takes place, that is how a revolutionary
structure functions, because it is oriented towards a goal and an end,
because we do it for that reason and not for any other...
...and what we said until now is simply that the goals of the guerrilla
struggle are integrated into the structure of the struggling group,
which rules out everything which has been said here.
And what follows, very clearly, from all of this, from the entire
structure, from the collective determination of the goals, is,
obviously, and this has already been said here, I believe, that each of
us is responsible for the 72 offensive...
Would you shut your mouth already. This is what I know, what I've lived…
The strategy against US imperialism, against the military occupation by
the USA, was developed in the beginning, that is, when we were still in
the phase of construction based on discussion.
We can go back even further, to the student movement, to the protest
movement against the Vietnam War, because it is part of our history,
because it was within this experience that the process of
politicization developed. And I mean in its totality, the experience
itself, on the basis of the unique situation, on the basis of
alienation in the metropoles, as well as the experience of the unique
possibilities, subjectivity, liberation, and the sense of what
conditions would be necessary to realize this, or at least attempt to
It was as a result of the system’s reaction during this period that we
acquired, for the first time, an idea of where we were, an idea about
this State, of the role that it plays in US strategy, how the FRG
supported and made possible the intervention of the USA on all levels,
military, political, financial and through propaganda.
What was new, what was strong, what, in general, gave the student
movement its power, what mobilized it, was its identification with and
orientation towards the liberation struggle of the Vietnamese people.
It was on this basis that it could identify as part of the global
process of the anti-imperialist war of liberation and understand itself
as an ally of the people who struggle in the Third World and as a
“second front” in the metropoles. They didn’t actually manage to become
a front, a part of a single structure, but by their destruction they
clearly exposed the limitations of legal opposition and
action. Everyone who saw this as a point of departure and didn't want
give it up saw that revolutionary politics are only possible here, can
be effective here, if they are armed, illegal and internationalist.
The movement against the Vietnam War was, as such, to sum up one more
time, the subjective condition on the basis of which the RAF developed.
It was on the basis of this experience and our analyses that we
the strategic function of the guerilla in the metropole; this was to be
a process within the disintegration caused by the encirclement of the
centres by the liberation struggles in the Third World. The liberation
struggles on the periphery that, by their military intervention, were
an element of instability. And, as such, their operative foreign policy
was the front.
I’ve spoken so much about this to explain the context for the 1972
offensive against the American bases in the FRG, to show that these
actions both represent and reveal the entire process, the totality of
Would you stop it already. You won’t succeed in controlling what I say
here in any way whatsoever.
I want to talk about Andreas again, because there is always an effort
here to portray him as a boss or whatever garbage of that sort.
It is, in fact, very simple; if he were the boss, how come we still
exist after six years ?
This should really be impossible. And yet we do still exist.
The precise role which Andreas always had, and it is perfectly clear
that he assumed leadership, and did so from the beginning, is based on
the fact that it was he that made possible the process which I've been
talking about today. I believe Ulrike once said, “He had the most
foresight and the greatest capacity for organization.” That sums it up.
And in this process, in which each person embraces the struggle, which
is a necessary precondition for the existence of the guerrilla, the
decision of each person and the will to carry out the struggle - an
individual either has a leadership role or he doesn't. But he doesn't
demand it. There is no “right to it.” It is simply a question of the
clearest perspective, which I experienced in another way later, after
my arrest in 74, in Info.
I want to say that of all of us, it was he who had the greatest ability
to think things through – that is how I would characterize it – to
things through to their end point, to perceive and integrate all of the
conditions and the entire process through which our struggle could be
developed towards its goal. And I, naturally, oriented myself on the
basis of this, because I had the same goal as him - I repeat, we
oriented ourselves on this basis.
That was perfectly clear at the time. I can now say that I had never
previously experienced this. It was for me a totally new experience. It
is clear that the individual who decides to carry out the guerrilla
struggle must transform all that he has previously experienced, that he
must break with what he has experienced and the way in which he has
And the smear campaign which was constantly carried out against him,
obviously had a pure and simple propaganda goal: to denounce the
guerrilla and demolish the moral integrity of the group. That is to
say, a counter-propaganda goal, psychological warfare that operates by
personalizing reality, because they cannot attack the contents of
revolutionary politics without in fact giving them voice.
But in all of this, there is also a precise material goal; he is made
into a horrific figure, “naked terror” personified, with the goal of
psychologically preparing public opinion, of conditioning public
opinion, so as to be able to assassinate him…
...exactly as occurred with Ulrike, or, for example, as it was in 72,
when she was still outside, with the announcements of her suicide.
But the important thing is that leadership in the guerilla is always
leadership against and never leadership “of”. Its goal is to make
itself superfluous as a particular role within the collective group
process. That is to say that its goal is to make each person capable of
assuming this leadership role…
I have to repeat, I will speak here as I need to, as we must when we
come here for the first time, so that what we have to say is said in
the clearest possible way. And if I must think, for a moment, I’ll take
the time. Is that clear?
I want to discuss another complex phenomenon, still related to
structure, and I have more things to add related to Andreas. I want to
talk about the period following my second arrest at the beginning of 74.
And this concerns another element here, as well: Info.
Specifically, all this bullshit thrown at the world regarding Info:
that it had
a hierarchical structure, directives and orders. And after this story
acceptably inflated by the Federal Prosecution via the media, it is now
to make the accusation of the “establishment of a criminal association
the prison,” that is, all of this nonsense that consists of claiming
the prisoners direct illegal groups on the outside from their cells,
It’s such bullshit, given the entire structure, which I’ve talked about
constantly; it’s impossible and absurd on the military level, and, as a
on the political level. In any event, even if it were technically
we would refuse to do it.
Good. Now about Info. Info already existed in 74 when I
ended up back in prison again. As a result of the conditions they were
subjected to, the prisoners had created something that went further
done by the group I participated in when I first came out of prison in
Info was developed as a result of the necessity, in this
of community, of receiving information about what is happening in
It was a surrogate for communication.
I could explain it in this way: Info was the space in which we
could live. Isolation represents a more intense version of the
which dominates on the outside, which led us to engage in clandestine
struggle in the first place. In isolation, this situation exists in its
state, in its naked reality. Whoever doesn't find a way to struggle
this situation is destroyed. So it is necessary to control the
and not be controlled by it.
Info was the way we found. One must understand the
conditions: isolation. It's simple. There weren't many issues; either
one was destroyed or else one developed something, even in there. And
that simply meant always having the will to arrive at the goal. One
must find the means to achieve it, to achieve what one wants, to obtain
what one needs, what one aspires to, in isolation, alone. I learned
that when I was in prison the first time, when none of this existed.
One develops an enormous desire to simply communicate, and in the only
way that that is still possible, with absolute sincerity towards
oneself and towards others. It's a struggle. It doesn't simply happen.
One moment, you stupid shit. We understand clearly that for a year your
method has been to attempt to silence every coherent intervention!
I was in the process of explaining that it isn't easy. It is not enough
to simply want it or to wish for it. It is a highly conscious struggle,
under the enormous pressure we are submitted to in isolation, to manage
to communicate with each other by writing. And the process which that
was made possible by Andreas, because he kept this process open at all
times. He only intervened when some of the old shit, which had already
been eliminated, reappeared somewhere. And, obviously, what happens is
that in isolation we get entangled again in the old structures. This is
unavoidable when the structures are as complex and as profoundly
anchored as they are here in the metropole. I must say that the
struggle that we carry out in isolation is the struggle for
consciousness. If we don't succeed in establishing new consciousness,
then it is the old one that imposes itself.
That is what I mean when I say that it was Andreas, in prison, just as
on the outside, who gave the collective process its orientation. That
his methods of struggle represent for each of us a means to orient
ourselves was something that I learned from the way in which he
intervened when he understood what was going on, something that I had
not been aware of previously.
And one of the ways that we attempted to take responsibility, in a
given phase of the process of collectivization through Info,
was by means of criticism and self-criticism. This means radically
to really know everything about oneself and to know the same things
each of the others. That means that the exchange, the interaction,
in the transmission of the individual process, in an understanding of
point one is at, of the point from which one must struggle. In
each of us experienced again, on an entirely different existential
the fact that struggle, that identity, is only possible collectively.
Of course, this cannot be separated from all of the other things we
worked on. For example, the texts and analyses about the structure of
capital, about military strategy or counter-insurgency, analyses that
were developed in
the process of collective discussions.
We never told anyone “you have to do this or that”, but we did say what
there was to do, what each person could do, if he wanted to. The
condition is having the will. Coercion and submission, or competitive
struggles for imaginary positions in an imaginary hierarchy, signify,
in isolation, under these conditions, that the group is on the point of
fragmenting, that it
won’t survive much longer, that it can no longer struggle.
Only an idiot could believe all the rubbish presented here as
counterpropaganda against us.
 Gerhard Müller - supporter of the RAF who
turned State evidence after his arrest. [return
N.B. All footnotes in this document were
added by the translator and editor. None are originally from the RAF.
 Brigitte Mohnhaupt - founding member of the RAF,
arrested in the early 70s. She was released and went back underground.
Arrested again in 1984, she is now serving a life sentence - as of 2005
she is still held separate from the general prison population.
Stammheim - high security prison in Stuttgart. A special court, used
for trials of RAF members, was built inside the complex. [return to text]
 Theodor Prinzing - judge in the first major RAF
trial. [return to text]
 Ulrike Meinhof - founding member of the. RAF,
murdered in prison in l976. [return to text]
 Federal Republic of Germany - FRG, West Germany.
[return to text]
 On May 11, 1972, a RAF bomb destroyed the
Officer's Club of the US Army in Frankfurt. A Colonel was killed and
thirteen officers were injured. (see For
The Victory Of The People Of Vietnam, May 14th 1972)
On May, 24, 1972, a RAF bomb exploded at the headquarters of the
American Army in Heidelberg. A Captain and two Sergeants were killed,
were injured. (see Attack On The American
Forces Headquarters, May 25th 1972)
The kidnappings were never carried out. [return
 Stern - weekly bourgeois news magazine.
[return to text]
 Andreas Baader – founding member of the RAF,
murdered in prison in October 1977. [return
 Gudrun Ensslin - founding member of the RAF,
murdered in prison in October 1977. [return
 On May 12, 1972, the RAF bombed the Bavarian
Police Headquarters in Munich in retaliation for the police shooting of
RAF member Tommy Weissbecker in Augsburg. [return
 The five were Ulrike Meinhof, Gudrun Ensslin,
Jan-Carl Raspe, Holger Meins and Andreas Baader. Ulrike Meinhof was
murdered in prison 1976. Holger Meins died on hungerstrike in 1974.
[return to text]
 On May 12, 1972, the RAF bombed the
Bavarian Police Headquarters in Munich in retaliation for the police
RAF member Tommy Weissbecker in Augsburg. See Commando
Thomas Weisbecker, May 16th 1972. [return
 Petra Schelm - On July 15, 1972, Petra Schelm, a
RAF member, was shot dead by police at a roadblock in Hamburg.
Thomas Weissbecker - see note number 10. [return
 Springer Bombing - On May 19th 1972, the RAF
bombed the Springer buildings. Three telephone warnings were ignored
and seventeen people were injured. [return
 The State and media claimed Ulrike Meinhof
committed suicide as a result of tensions within the group in prison.
This propaganda contradicts all independent studies, which indicate
that she was murdered. See Jan-Carl
Raspe’s statement on this subject. [return
 Siegfried Hausner - On April 24, 1975, the
Commando Holger Meins of the RAF took over the West German Embassy in
Sweden. They demanded the release of twenty-six political prisoners
in West Germany. Police stormed the building, setting off explosives
by the commando, and injuring Siegfried Hausner. He was denied
medical attention and subsequently died in transit. [return to text]
 Commando Holger Meins - On April 24, 1975,
the Commando Holger Meins of the RAF took over the West German Embassy
Stockholm, Sweden. They demanded the release of twenty-six political
held in West Germany. See Statement of
Holger Meins, April 24th 1975. [return to
 Info - a magazine of writings by
political prisoners, which allowed the prisoners to stay in touch with
each other's ideas. [return to text]
 Holger Meins - . [return
 2nd of June Movement - anarchist guerilla
movement based in West Berlin. It dissolved in 1977 and a part of its
entered the RAF. [return to text]
 Astrid Proll - founding member of the RAF. She
had to be released from prison after the dead wing destroyed her
fled and was re-arrested years later in England, after which she served
short sentence. She has disavowed her RAF politics and now actively
for amnesty for prisoners who have left the RAF. [return to text]
 Helmut Pohl - early RAF member and political
prisoner. [return to text]
 Reference to two prison guards. [return to text]
 Klaus Jünschke - a RAF prisoner. He
attacked the judge, Theodor Prinzing, on the day before Helmut Pohl’s
[return to text]
 False communiqués were issued in the name
of the RAF. They alleged a campaign of random bombings for June 2nd,
1972. These communiqués had their source in the security police
counterinsurgency campaign. [return to text]
 The RAF was founded in 1970. Baader was arrested
in 1972 with Raspe and Meins. [return to text]