The Red Army Faction, a Documentary History, Volume 1 (69 page)

However, what we now want you to tell us is whether you still stand by what the RAF said in 71/72? What do you think about the Stockholm liberation action? What errors do you think you’ve made in the interim? What do you hope to achieve with your trials?—People, we’re asking you these things, because we are no longer clear about your politics. We recognize little of the RAF’s original orientation.

Another important point: address the change. Better yet: rejuvenate the clearly significant impact of the information you provided, the statements you made, and the mobilization that resulted from the way you “made use of the trials.” For instance the way Brigitte Mohnhaupt clarified your structure for that rat Prinzing—using that as the key venue— so as to expose the bought-off witness Müller as a liar.
¹
Why did it take Müller, Prinzing, Buback & Co. to get you to say something about your structure, while we and others have waited since 72 for precisely such information and so much more?

Comrades, we have a completely practical problem with you. We have considered you comrades for a long time now, but many people on the outside don’t feel that they are your comrades. We and others have been and will be used and subordinated to your trial strategy, for example, and for other mobilizations and campaigns as well. It is not possible to develop or discuss a common strategy with you. Obviously it is extremely difficult to do that through the prison walls. But we have the impression that that is not the only obstacle. Much more important is
the fact you were much too quick to judge us. All too often you have indicated that you have no faith in our strength or that of others; in those on the outside, who also want to and must struggle, and who also hope to make decisions for themselves. They don’t, however, want to offer you the wrong kind of support, blindly praying that they meet your rigid demands. Rather, they first want to think things over for themselves. That also goes for a large part of the undogmatic movement.—Yes comrades, we appear to be nothing more to you than a tool to be discarded when it is worn out. You don’t ask why it’s worn out. You simply assume we are weak and (massively) opportunistic, that we are completely at peace in this corrupt, man-eating system. And that’s depressing. Enough of the category of comrade or pig!

And now listen carefully: it is simply complete, defeatist nonsense to claim that the entire left is on the defensive. Your disgusting fantasy about us and our strength is really a sign that you are on the defensive… How did you arrive at the decision to break off the last hunger strike, incorrectly claiming that we (the RZ, the 2nd of June Movement, the undogmatic groups, and and and…) were on the defensive??? You achieved absolutely nothing with your last hunger strike, while your defense attorneys and the Committees Against Torture gave everything they had to support your demands. Professors, doctors, writers (Sartre
²
), clergy (Scharf
³
), Amnesty (Austria), many undogmatic and even dogmatic groups (KPD/ML) supported your hunger strike. The murder of Holger was immediately answered by the shooting of von Drenkmann. Many people understood clearly that torture occurred even in German prisons. Is that really nothing? Do you really see that as a sign of the entire left being on the defensive?
⁴

Besides the broad-based solidarity during the hunger strike, things have developed and are developing that are far from discouraging, things that you have only partially grasped. Recent history clearly shows that the masses here have not been completely bought off. It also shows how fruitful this terrain can be: the Nordhorn-Range, the September
strikes of 73, the RZ attacks on ITT, Wyhl, Brokdorf, women’s groups, the attack by the women of the RZ against the Federal Constitutional Court due to §218, forged public transit passes,
¹
increasing struggle and politicization in the prisons, foreigners’ committees and groups, Lorenz and his vacation, riots in Frankfurt against public transit fare increases, squats, etc. That is also partially the result of your practice. Comrades, do these movements simply not exist in your minds? Or do you think they are of no importance? Are they not important enough for you in the context of internationalism? Or do you consider them irrelevant because they don’t have the same political practice as the RAF?

And now to the particulars: we cannot accept the complete lack of solidarity with which you treat some comrades from these movements:

For example, the
Informationsdienst
writer who reported on your trial. You accused him of objectively being a cop, because he didn’t quote Andreas Baader word for word. When this “objective cop” responded in a way that showed solidarity, you broke off all communication. Does that mean that you found his criticism to be accurate or that from this point onward, he is simply objectively a cop? This ID writer subsequently stopped his reporting…

Also, we can’t accept some of your denunciations of individual lawyers. You certainly know what we mean! These lawyers are comrades!

How did it happen that the attorney Croissant came to be the executor of Ulrike’s “estate”? Ulrike isn’t a file. She struggled alongside you! As you know, since then Klaus Croissant has gone so far as to accuse Klaus Wagenbach
²
of working hand in hand with state security, and has used the justice system (that wants to exterminate you) to request a legal decision to have Peter Brückner’s
³
book about Ulrike Meinhof withdrawn from circulation. Via Klaus Croissant, §88a
⁴
will
be implemented from the left. Nothing like that has ever happened before! Why don’t you just talk to Klaus Wagenbach—a comrade? How do you feel about the new §88a?

You’ve maintained complete silence about a very important article from the Red Aid/West Berlin Prisoners’ Collective (published in
Info-BUG
#111) regarding the problems faced by POWs. We think that’s bullshit.

Your silence regarding the Committees Against Torture (they primarily supported the RAF prisoners) must finally end. Start with their activities up until the persecution through surveillance, raids, and Winter Trip. After that the committees dissolved themselves. Did you agree to this? Were they quickly replaced by a defense committee/support fund?

These are only some examples. What we’re trying to say to you is that in the future you can’t continue to abuse important comrades in the movement. You can’t continue to denounce them as objective cops, state security agents, or BKA members. It is not only a disgrace, it is extremely dangerous! We will not allow you to continue to do this in the future. Period!

You, that is to say the RAF comrades, have drawn attention to an important point. Yet again. Specifically, the problem of psychological warfare. Since you first decided to point it out, we have begun to consider the press and interviews and their function in Buback’s strategy much more seriously. So we really don’t understand why you’ve effectively left the field to this regimented media. In the near future an RZ interview will address this.

We usually first learn of your statements from the
Frankfurter Rundschau, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Berliner Zeitung
, etc. Initially, their meaning is only clear to comrades “in the know.” The same is true with regards to the Geneva Convention. It is extremely common that we get our first information about you from random newspapers and news shows. It must be clear to you that as a result rumors and incorrect reports circulate as news about you. It is only very seldom that we get the information from you first. It usually comes too late to correct false reports. As a result many comrades can only then be mobilized for whatever campaign. Often without understanding what it is they’re doing. When you howl about that—without doing anything about it either on the outside or from within prison—how do you make yourselves look? You’re reaction is out of proportion. We cannot in any way accept your treating us or others with scorn.

Now a few basic questions:

What’s your position regarding the politics of the Revolutionary Cells and the 2nd of June Movement? For instance, the Lorenz kidnapping, forged public transit passes, the attack of the women of the RZ against the Federal Constitutional Court, forged food vouchers for Berlin’s homeless…?

How do you support your lawyers, who are directly or indirectly subjected to the
Berufsverbot
? Who suffer constant persecution? How do you help them keep their COURAGE up, besides railing against Buback & Co.? We’re asking, because at this point there aren’t many left lawyers remaining to defend revolutionary prisoners.

Why, at this point, do you only seek the support of prominent personalities? Is it because they’re in the forefront of the legal movement? We see this as a huge mistake.

What’s your position on a common discussion of all political prisoners and all prisoners that have been politicized in prison? We don’t mean by this that you should demand that they all be placed together in the same concentration camp, which is Buback’s idea. That’s a mistake. Rather we mean the mutual strengthening of all prisoners who struggle inside the prisons.

Don’t you think that the Stockholm action should be criticized? And certainly not only because the action failed to achieve its demands. That’s not the point. Rather, because the whole action was an unpleasant example of how a few comrades totally overshadowed your relationships and experiences. They did not mediate anything of a long-term nature. Even the demands themselves bore no relationship to the action. Two comrades paid for the action with their lives. The timeframe for fulfilling the demands was far too short.—Mistakes were made that must be completely avoided the next time. So mistakes were made. Turn every defeat into victory!…

What, for example, is your position regarding the powerful movements in Brokdorf, Wyhl etc.? And what is your overall position regarding the antinuclear movement?

We think that state security has reinforced your isolation from each other, and you have completely isolated yourselves from the broader left-wing movement. You must make contact with them again: a fish out of water will die of thirst! Even if you think you don’t need water to swim. We think that the tactics that you share with us are not primarily based on causing criminal damage. Even communiqués must be written in West German so that everybody can understand them. Your
communiqués can no longer be understood by the general public. They can only be understood by insiders. So now mobilizations are the result of psychological pressure, not of objective necessity.

And now, RAF comrades, we arrive at the possibility of a 4th hunger strike:

We think that there is too much ambiguity and contradiction between you and those who should and could support the hunger strike. We have attempted to identify some of these issues. So this letter should be taken as the beginning of a long discussion. Now you have to put your cards on the table. Otherwise this isn’t going to work anymore. Otherwise what you want is blind solidarity. You can no longer avoid clarifying whether we and others on the left are your comrades. Whether we’re nothing more than your instrument, now defined as the “left on the defensive.”

Will you choose the Geneva Convention, the closed concentration camp, and with that take a position against us, or will you choose equality with other prisoners, will you choose to break through your isolation, and thereby decide in favor of unity with us? Previously, you demanded the abolition of special conditions and equality with other prisoners. Now, you insist upon a piece of paper, specifically the Geneva Convention. However, POW status implies [illegible in the version provided]. With your demand you overlook the interests of other prisoners. You must be prepared to withdraw your denunciations! Do you really want to throw away your lives for a foolish demand like POW status? Is it because you think you are no longer necessary? Is it because you think you can no longer rely on the movement?

Should you decide, in spite of everything, to just blow this letter off and—as has been the case before—to greet it with silence, and should you decide, in spite of everything, to gamble with your lives for the application of the Geneva Convention, our solidarity will be more a torment than a given.

A Revolutionary Cell December 1976

Only one thing is clear about this letter: its state security function, its function for Buback’s extermination strategy against us in the form it is now taking: psychological warfare to destroy the RAF’s politics.

That is to say, what is clear in it is the treachery of a section of the undogmatic left, their capitulation to Buback, and their total subservience to his objectives. Even if the letter doesn’t come from the RZ,
Info-BUG
published and distributed it and nobody from that section of the left did anything to prevent it. The lies, falsehoods, and denunciations in this letter are nothing new, nor is the fact that
Info
published it. But this letter is different, because it doesn’t come from a prisoner support group, but from the RZ (in any event, that’s where it claims to come from)—an organization that struggles—and this gives it a totally different kind of credibility and authority.

The function of this letter is to disorient those people in the undogmatic scene who want something other than the private, insubstantial screwing around of the
sponti
groups, those who really want to know something about us, who want to orient themselves around us, to struggle or to support us. It also serves to let Buback know that the section of the left that wrote this letter and those who find it accurate will not resist his efforts to liquidate the RAF’s politics and the prisoners, to kill Andreas, to completely seal the holes, etc. But not just that: it also tells him that this left is not prepared to support a hunger strike that we believe is necessary; rather it is ready to support and is already supporting the creation of propaganda to justify his countermeasures.

The disorientation campaign unfolds following the pattern of psychological warfare—through allegations and lies about us. They don’t talk about the state’s repression, just like when the bourgeois media publish state security information about us: “there aren’t many left lawyers remaining to defend revolutionary prisoners”; the support groups disband because of police repression; the
Informationsdienst
writer can only respond to criticism like the ultimate bourgeois journalist—aggrieved and offended, as if his article was a favor to us.