Talk:Brigitte Mohnhaupt

Very attractive

Activist and cute :)

-G

Jimbo Wales highly recommended ...

Jimbo Wales highly recommended to delete the article about the SPK and all links to the Wikipedia-project terrorism. See our recent Boston meeting, see the juridical proceedings of SPK against Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.208.239 (talk • contribs)

I made no recommendation about this article. The anon ip number should be ignored.--Jimbo Wales 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Error in Vollmer's statement

Green member Antje Vollmer says in the article that Brigitte Mohnhaupt and Christian Klar "have been longer in prison than any Nazi criminal." This is incorrect: Rudolf Hess was in prison for well over 40 years. But should this be included in the article. Is it up to us to point the reader to the error in her statement? Aecis^Brievenbus 20:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should make a brief note, since it's well-substantiated and otherwise it seems like we're presenting Vollmer's incorrect assertion as fact. Something like "(although Rudolf Hess served longer)" would work for me. ---Delirium 20:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the quote worth including at all? (If it is worth including then Delirium is quite right: quoting a statement that is contrary to verifiable fact, without mentioning its inaccuracy, is irresponsible.) --- 2007-02-12 22:40 UTC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.89.32.154 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I have added it to the footnote. Feel free to reword it or move it to the text inline as you see fit. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Typical Vollmer comment...--217.85.92.105 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Note, Hess was not a prisoner in the German justice system. I assume that's what Vollmer was refering to, no Nazi was kept in prison under the german judiscial system for a duration approaching that of Mohnhaupt or other RAF members. Therefore Vollmer's quote should remain in place and uncommented.--Caranorn 13:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but 1)Germany as the loser of WWII had no right to punish the German War Criminals, it was the Job of the Allied(and they did most of the trails befor Germany exist as staate again) 2) The most highest Nazi Criminals commit suicide or died during the war(Hitler, Göbbels, Himmler, Göring, Heydrich, Freisler,...) 3) The other high ranking Nazi Criminals(and the low ranking would have been shoot by the nazis if they didnt follow the orders and refuse to do crimes, so they cant realy count) were in their late 50s and older. Most didnt surive long enugh to be 25 years in prison(Doenitz and Hess was by far the longest living until the 1980s(most died in the '50s some in the 1960s) and his trail was done by the allied, and he hadent comite serious war crimes(Nimitz gave the similar orders). And not all Nazi Party Members did crimes(they were assholes yes, but some were inocent, or at least not proven guilty), wile all RAF Members did, and were proven guilty.--84.46.2.188 (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Hess is irrelevant here. Most of the Nazis benefited from amnesties from the early 1950s to the mid-1950s, so they did less than ten years. Caranorn is correct. Have a look at Ex-Nazis and tell me if most of them spent 25 years of prison. Tazmaniacs 01:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's quite easy: A Russian/Soviet (or other allied) war criminal gets an award for his deeds and a German war criminal is supposed to get death or at least a life sentence. Back in the 50's and the 60's the Germans still understood, that there is something wrong about that. Would Speer, Göring or any other German that has been convicted after the war (or simply killed without any trial - and there were lots of those) have been convicted or killed, too, if they had stood on the side of the Soviets?--AchtungAchtung 15:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, a quote from the article Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring, that illustrates very well how a lot of people have been killed without any trial, simply because they have been accused of something collectively:

"As Luftwaffe men, along with the Waffen-SS and Polizei units, were seen by the Russians as war criminals, due to their involvement in atrocities committed on Eastern Front, the majority of the survivors of the Panzerkorps would not return from the Gulags of the Soviet Union."--AchtungAchtung 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

overview

Under 'Terrorist Overview' is the following - "However, in November 1978 she was allowed to leave for a country of her choice."

Can anyone provide more information on why she was allowed to leave?

Julvar 03:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the reason was that Yugoslavia wanted to trade her for some croatian political fugitives living in West Germany but the german government turned the offer down. So the yugos just let her walk. Napikwan 10:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"She was once described as ' the most evil and dangerous woman in West Germany. '[1]"

By who? Is this relevant?

Description of sentence

"She was given such a harsh sentence because of the significant role she played during the German Autumn and for her part in the attempted assassination of NATO General Kroesen." I find this statement strange - it seems to me that she got a pretty light sentence. I think this needs some support. Do serial killers in Germany normally get lighter sentences than this?--Rkstafford 05:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• • While I agree that the word harsh might be a little pov, she got five terms of life in prison. That's not a light sentence in a country that doesn't have the death penalty. There's an obligatory review on life sentences in Germany after 24 years, so this case is no different from others. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Five life sentences is hardly a light sentence. Especially in the context of the German justice system which I don't recall as having a death sentence or handing out life sentences every other day. What standard do you apply to make it harsh? Ten life sentences, bread and water, and no TV? Sorry, but this is a silly discussion.Wiggy! 12:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Like the others said that was a long sentence for European standards. Lastly she is not a serial killer, all her actions were politically motivated however misguided (the actions, not the principle).--Caranorn 13:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the rule about reviewing any sentence after 24 years, how is her sentence any harsher than one "life" sentence, or than 5 ten-year sentences? Without getting into the argument about what her sentence should have been, I don't see any support for calling it "harsh" in any practical sense. Perhaps "symbolically harsh". If that's true, the article needs to provide that context, and some support for the claim. As for the question of whether she's a serial killer, I think her record speaks for itself. I don't particularly see why having political motives makes that untrue. But, I agree that calling her a "serial killer" also doesn't add anything to the question of whether her sentence was harsh. --Rkstafford 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the german language Wikipedia entry on life sentences, the law changed so no more multiple life sentences are given today for, say, multiple murder. This may make a fiftuple life sentence appear harsher than a single life sentence to current generations, but even in 1982 there was no actual difference from a single life sentence. The real harsh sentences today are life sentences with ensuing "prevention retention" for convicts considered likely to return to their crimes after the sentence in order to protect the public. Additionally, as per law, the reason for the five life sentences, as per german entry again and as per law, was fiftuple attempted murder, not the significant role she played (well, unless you judge importance of role by attempted murders).

159.51.236.194 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In the context of modern German Law, a sentence of more than 15 years already is extraordinary. Mario Mederake, for example, who recently abducted a 13 year old in Dresden and kept her as a sex slave for a horrific five weeks until she was rescued, could only recieve a maximum sentence of 14 years. The girl's family is considering emmigrating from Germany because he will be 50 and she will be 27 when he's released. Mohnhaupt never did anything anywhere near that, she was an accessory to a botched kidnapping and shot an RPG-7 at an American General that didn't even kill him. In the annals of terrorist groups, compared to the likes of Abu Nidal and the Black Septemberists (responsible for the Munich massacre), the antics of the West German Red Army Faction are rather tame. 71.149.149.169 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mohnhaupt is free

Today mornning (25 March 2007) Mohnhaupt came free (look at DE:WP). The official date of coming free is 27 March, but the German right says that prisoners can let free one or two days before or after the "official date", too. Tritonus05 10:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore what I wrote before - I can't even tell what date it is today! Pontificake 11:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states, "According to weekly Die Zeit, keeping her in prison would signify that the state was confirming the terrorists' view of themselves as political prisoners." In order to refute the terrorists' claim, we should not only have freed her, but should reward her with a lifetime pension, in addition to full health care benefits. That would show the world that she was not a political prisoner.Lestrade (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Urban guerrilla or terrorist?

This intro to the article seems to be under dispute, in particular over the use of the terms urban guerilla and terrorist. Please discuss the wording of the intro here, instead of reverting each other back and forth. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Either goes for me. The term Urban Guerilla is a self identification, the term Terrorist in it's original definition is also an acceptable description. Of course a problem arises with the more modern (post 9/11) definitions of terrorism which are not acceptable from a scientific (history, political sciences etc.) point of view.--Caranorn 13:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The guerrilla part doesn't fit, the style was rather partisan warfare. Calling them terrorists is OK and I say this without the political load in the word people attribute to them. It's just about the method they used. __41.150.3.148 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Underground resistance?

The article says: "She was released on 8 February 1977, and immediately went underground and continued her work with the RAF." The term "underground" is an internal link which leads to the article about the resistance movements. Could the Red Army Faction be considered a resistance movement? - Follgramm3006, 21:06, Thursday, April 9, 2009, Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Follgramm3006 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course they could be considered a "resistance movement", just like the left-wing of the so-called "French Resistance". Given that some of the targets were occupational armies facilities they do have some attributes of a national resistance movement as well. __41.150.3.148 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)