BOOKS AND ARTS DECEMBER 30, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

There is an ungainly German word, Vergangenheitsbewältigung, that has no equivalent in the English language. It means "coming to terms with past," and it was coined to refer to the efforts of German intellectuals, journalists, and even some politicians who, over the past half century, insisted that facing unpleasant truths about their country's history was both a moral and political necessity. As a result of these efforts, Vergangenheitsbewältigung has become part of the core political culture of contemporary Germany.
A new German movie that has attracted considerable attention in Europe is part of this tradition--albeit in an unusual way. While Vergangenheitsbewältigung generally refers to examination of the Nazi era, this film looks at another chapter in German history: the rise, during the 1970s, of a radical left-wing group called the Red Army Faction (or the Baader-Meinhof Gang, after its leaders, Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof). Obviously, the group's crimes were in no way analogous to those of the Nazis; the RAF ultimately murdered 34 people, while the Nazis murdered millions. Still, an honest reckoning with the past is exactly what the movie attempts. And, in providing a frank and unsentimental depiction of the brutal excesses associated with 1960s radicalism, it sets an example that Hollywood would do well to follow.
In 1985, Stefan Aust--one of West Germany's most prominent journalists and for many years editor of Der Spiegel, the country's most popular news magazine--published a book about the Red Army Faction called Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex, which went on to become a best-seller. In September, a feature film based on the book, and carrying the same name, opened in Germany. And, several weeks ago, the movie's East Coast American premier took place at the American Film Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland, with Aust in attendance to answer questions from the sold-out audience.
Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex begins with the anti-Vietnam and anti-Shah demonstrations in West Berlin of the late 1960s. Its depictions of left-wing leader Rudi Dutschke leading a chant of "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh" at what is probably the Free University in Berlin, police violence against anti-Shah demonstrators, the shootings of Dutschke and student Benno Ohnesorg, and attacks on the right-wing Springer Press bring the viewer back to the maelstrom of violence out of which the Red Army Faction emerged. We see the evolution of Ulrike Meinhof from left-wing journalist to terrorist, as well as the emergence of Andreas Baader (a foul-mouthed thug with an appetite for violence) and his girlfriend Gudrun Ensslin, a minister's daughter-turned-radical.
Director Uli Edel and writer Bernd Eichinger present the RAF as it was--a brutal, violent organization--while flatly and effectively contradicting some of the myths surrounding the group. They show the RAF shooting an unarmed office worker in a successful effort to free Baader from custody, placing bombs in police departments and at the Springer Press building, and exchanging fire with police after being offered the option of peacefully surrendering. They present the RAF seizure of the German Embassy in Stockholm and the murder of its military attache, Andreas von Mirbach. Scenes of the murder of German banker Jurgen Ponto in his home (though disputed in its details by his widow) and of the assassination of German Attorney General Siegfried Buback and his bodyguards with machine guns by two assassins on a motorcycle leave nothing to the imagination; they are barbaric.
In 1972, Baader, Meinhof, and Ensslin were captured and placed in separate jails. But, in response to pressure from the prisoners and their supporters on the outside, they were moved to a special floor reserved for them in Stammheim prison. Many European intellectuals, including Jean-Paul Sartre, subsequently accepted the RAF's claim that the prisoners were being mistreated in Stammheim. One of the important accomplishments of Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex is to show that the prisoners resided in what was, as jails go, a relatively palatial environment. They had televisions, stereos, radios, and books. For the first time in post-war West German history, men and women were allowed on the same floor. They could meet and talk with one another in preparation for their trial. The film also depicts the role their lawyers played in conveying messages back and forth between RAF prisoners and RAF members on the outside--and in smuggling guns hidden inside legal briefing books to the prisoners.
The high point of public attention for the group came in the fall of 1977 with the kidnapping of Hanns-Martin Schleyer, one of Germany's leading businessmen, in an effort to bargain for the release of the RAF prisoners. (Meinhof had committed suicide in 1976, but others were still alive.) The kidnapping began with a well-planned massacre. Schleyer's car was rammed by another. One of the RAF women pulled a machine gun out of a baby carriage. In seconds, other RAF members mowed down all of Schleyer's bodyguards and his driver with machine guns before seizing him. In a careful reconstruction of the crime scene based on the extensive investigation done at the time, Aust, Edel, and Eichinger have produced a cinematic moment that demolishes any of the romantic aura that may still surround these killers in some circles. In fact, police investigators found over 20 bullets in the corpses of two of the bodyguards. The film ends with Schleyer's murder in woods near the German-Belgium border.
The film shatters one more RAF myth as well. When the West German government refused to release the prisoners, the RAF upped the ante and, with cooperation from Palestinian terrorists, seized a Lufthansa flight and threatened to blow it up unless its demands were met. After German special forces stormed the plane and released the hostages, the RAF prisoners in Stammheim committed suicide. The RAF and its gullible or cynical apologists insisted that they were murdered. Investigations by numerous judicial and parliamentary bodies have repeatedly confirmed that two of the prisoners shot themselves with guns smuggled into the prison, while another hanged herself. A fourth attempted suicide by stabbing herself but was saved by prison doctors. Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex places on the big screen the truth about these self-inflicted deaths, which RAF supporters transformed into a politically useful story of martyrdom at the hands of the allegedly fascist state.
The movie isn't perfect, of course. The biggest failing is that it glosses over the ideological context of the RAF story: the history of anti-semitism and communism in Germany, and how these ugly currents gave rise to a group of politically motivated murderers. True, the movie acknowledges the RAF's connections with Palestinian terror organizations in both Jordan and Iraq, two countries where its members sought refuge from German authorities. But, unfortunately, it does not have Ulrike Meinhof's character recite the anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic diatribe she wrote justifying what she called the Munich "aktion"--the 1972 murder of Israel's Olympic wrestling team. Nor does it make clear that RAF members saw themselves as part of the Marxist-Leninist tradition. In a manifesto from 1971, "On the Armed Struggle in Western Europe," RAF authors wrote that "Lenin had especially advocated the first goal of armed struggle, that is, the liquidation of individual functionaries of the apparatus of oppression." It was no surprise, then, that the East German government granted refuge to RAF members. In its theory and practice, the RAF was a chapter in the history of communism in twentieth century Europe.
Of course, I realize it might have been difficult to cram these points about political ideology into what is, first and foremost, a work of entertainment. The bottom line is that, despite its shortcomings, the film presents the essential--the murders of the 1970s--and shows RAF members as the killers they were. This is cause enough for historians to celebrate.
The admirable candor of Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex provides a much-needed challenge to Hollywood. No major American movie has yet told the story of the Weathermen, or for that matter the Black Panthers, with equal honesty. To be sure, the Weathermen did not engage in a campaign of murder comparable to that of the Red Army Faction in West Germany--or the Red Brigades in Italy or the Japanese Red Army. But neither, as some seem to think, was it simply the angriest part of the anti-war movement. In fact, its stated purpose was to carry out "armed struggle" in the United States in solidarity with third world communist movements and with the Black Panther Party in this country. The bombs being prepared by Weathermen in a Manhattan townhouse that exploded in March 1970 were intended to be set off at an upcoming dance for soldiers and their dates at Fort Dix. Had they exploded at the dance, dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people would have been killed. Members of the Weathermen were fond of arrogantly denouncing the great majority of participants in the anti-war and civil rights movements who declined to "pick up the gun." They mocked this decency as evidence of a "non-struggle attitude" or as the result of "white skin privilege." Today, former Weathermen leader Bill Ayers continues to rationalize the actions taken by his group--most prominently in a recent New York Times op-ed piece. An American equivalent of Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex--a movie that aimed to set the historical record straight by portraying the most violent 1960s radicals as they truly were--would do an enormous service.
The German film industry has nominated Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex for the Academy Award for best foreign film. I hope that it receives that honor and the additional exposure that would come with it. But, whether or not it wins an Oscar, I hope that American filmmakers take this movie as a long overdue invitation to revisit the uglier side of this country's experience with radicalism during the 1960s--and engage in some Vergangenheitsbewältigung of our own.
Jeffrey Herf teaches European history at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is the author of Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys and The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust.
21 comments
regardless of its historical "importance," the film was not a good one - and thus not deserving of an academy award. it was excruciatingly long, and character development was simplistic or absent. without knowing the film's author, I mentioned to my friend that it felt like watching a film version of a Spiegel article on the RAF. in fact, that's exactly what it was.
- jamiet
December 30, 2008 at 8:32am
Mr Herf's interpretation of the Baader-Meinhof Komplex movie and, for that matter, of that bit of German history is strikingly selective and reveals a decidedly authoritarian streak. For one thing, he chooses to ignore and not recognize the truly vile nature of a German government that goes against its own people. First by participating in the US's war in Vietnam (a war that even the American population according to polls regarded as "fundamentally wrong and immoral"), then by the dictatorial response to peaceful protests. These are depicted in the movie, in fact the movie begins by showing how German police willfully lets Shah supporters assault anti-war demonstrators. In the chaos that ensues, German police murders two demonstrators--one of them in a backyard, completely pre-meditated and political in its nature. Herf glosses over this and does not seem to see this as needing Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Furthermore, he lauds the German government's "palatial" prison conditions for the Baader-Meinhof gang but fails to mention how one of the prisoners is refused medical treatment after hunger striking and is willfully left to die by the prison guards, even with his attorney screaming at them to save him. Coming to terms with the past should include recognizing the crimes committed by one's own government, am I not right? In that sense I agree that the movie Baader-Meinhof Komplex sets an example that Hollywood would do well to follow. Unlike what Herf's one-sided reading of the movie might lead you to believe, it actually depicts some of the deeply authoritarian nature of the German government at the time. I would like to see the day Hollywood appropriately deals with its government's attacks on its population, like Cointelpro.
- Erik Hellsten
December 30, 2008 at 9:13am
"No major American movie has yet told the story of the Weathermen..." Professor Herf must be unaware of the documentary The Weather Underground, unless he doesn't think that film was "major."
- Marcy
December 30, 2008 at 9:18am
"The admirable candor of Der Baader-Meinhof Komplex provides a much-needed challenge to Hollywood. No major American movie has yet told the story of the Weathermen, or for that matter the Black Panthers, with equal honesty. To be sure, the Weathermen did not engage in a campaign of murder comparable to that of the Red Army Faction in West Germany--or the Red Brigades in Italy or the Japanese Red Army." This lacks some context. There have been numerous American films about radical groups that did engage in violence in the 60s and 70s, i.e., the Manson Family commune and the Symbionese Liberation Army (the group responsible for the kidnapping of Patty Hearst). Those films -- particularly Paul Schrader's film about the Hearst kidnapping -- have been brutally candid about their subjects. The absence of films about the Weathermen probably has to do with the fact that their plans generally did not succeed. Incompetence, as a rule, is not filmable. (The Sidney Lumet drama "Running On Empty" used aspects of the Weathermen story as a jumping-off point for a family drama, but it wasn't the focus of the story.) As regards the Black Panthers, it seems obvious that the elephant in the room there is race, not reluctance to deal candidly with the politics of the 1960s.
- alkali
December 30, 2008 at 11:10am
As my father would say: "Pictures are hung, people are hanged." Great article, but no excuse for basic error in good grammar.
- petey
December 30, 2008 at 12:18pm
Mr. Hellsten, i hardly found the refusal to give "medical treatment" to a terrorist whose condition was entirely self-inflicted, and who had murdered a number of civilians and police officers, some sort of dastardly act - i have no qualms in saying i would have done the same myself and would have felt quite good about it. the movie did, at least, portray the RAF for what it was: a group of silly, self-absorbed imbeciles with little thought for what they stood for beyond their own glorification and even less thought as to how they would make any difference. the german government at the time was hardly of the authoritarian bent you describe, and in any event orders of magnitude less worrisome than the romanticizing of the RAF, which still continues, as your baffling response makes all too clear.
- jamiet
December 30, 2008 at 1:28pm
"First by participating in the US's war in Vietnam (a war that even the American population according to polls regarded as 'fundamentally wrong and immoral')" Americans weren't even asked that question until years after the war ended. Until about 1970 there was more support than opposition. Even as late as 68 the majority wanted the war effort to be stepped up.
- Simon
December 30, 2008 at 5:38pm
I have yet to see the version of Baader-Mienhof that Mr. Herf laments Hollywood's slowness on. But really!! What interminable font does TNR trawl for it's never-ending lineup of reactionary academics!? Note to readers, if not to the good Professor. There actually is a decidedly non-Hollywood telling of The Weather Underground story (Sam Green/Bill Seigel's brilliant 2003 documentary) that treats the nuance, contradictions, grey tones and many tragic mistakes that unfortunately span Herf’s longed-for Black and White. But I suspect that isn't what Herf is missing; His is a clarion call for the full on, big-budget, high-gloss demonizing, lacquered with enough absolutism to appeal to large audiences politically naïve enough to buy the line anyone who made mistakes in resisting the West's proto fascist saber rattlers of the times was a Terrorist. Oh! To inhabit Prof. Herf's mindset that pines away for simplistic equations that show us once and for all that "Anti Zionist = Anti Semite = The Communist Left". True Vergangenheitsbewältigung, the likes of which Germans have commendably engaged in for the past half century is, I suspect....a much different animal that the one that trumps Herst’s Best In Revisionist Show Thomas Plagemann San Francisco CA
- thomas plagemann
December 31, 2008 at 3:02am
Members of the Baader-Meinhof movement and those who try to defend it are best understood as members of a romantic, green-oriented cult whose all-demanding god was totalitarianism; they simply worshipped totalitariansim. This cult of the totalitarian stood in sharp contrast with the "authoritarian" powers it sought to destroy. It had revealed secular texts (e. g., Marx, Lenin), standards of orthodoxy, clear understandings of heresy, and swift and brutal punishment for both heretics and for the dhimmi. The hollow and arrogantly violent nature of this elitist cult was revealed clearly in a flood of documentation after the world-wide implosion of communism. The entrenched power elites of the remenants of this cult in places like Cuba (and those who defend these self-appointed power elites) still arrogantly determine what the People of Cuba can read, which members of the elite can travel abroad, an who gets medical treatment in the medical centers specially reserved aside for members of the elite. No wonder such monopolistic elites are deathly opposed to the spread of the internet, cell phones, DVDs, and other high-tech means of communication. They want to monopolize all means of communication to prevent the People from getting information, gaining new understandings, and forming new conclusions about what constitutes the good life and who should determine it. Defenders of the Baader-Meinhof monopolistic mentality state openly that they want to deny to others opportunities (e. g., the right to demonstrate against those in power, the right to read whatever I want, the right to speak out, humane treatment of those taken captive, and the right to travel abroad) that they demand for themselves. I am no theologian, but I think that demanding opportunties for oneself while deliberately denying them to others may constitute the greatest of sins; it involves trying to become God and it alienates oneself from those to whom you deliberately deny opportunities.
- J. Edward
December 31, 2008 at 10:00am
>>First by participating in the US's war in Vietnam (a war that even the American population according to polls regarded as "fundamentally wrong and immoral")>> There were BRD troops in Vietnam? News to me. In any case, waging war against the close allies of those who ran the Gulags and brutally extinguished freedom in places like Hungary was unwise(in the case of Vietnam) but was not morally wrong. The numbers of innocents killed by the US in Vietnam were very very very small compared to the numbers of innocents who were killed by the Allies during WW2. >>I would like to see the day Hollywood appropriately deals with its government's attacks on its population, like Cointelpro.>> How about Waco and Ruby Ridge? Real attacks as opposed to intelligence ops.
- icr
December 31, 2008 at 3:11pm
"First by participating in the US's war in Vietnam (a war that even the American population according to polls regarded as "fundamentally wrong and immoral")," There were BRD troops in Vietnam? News to me. In any case, there was nothing wrong or immoral about waging war against the close allies of those who ran the Gulags and brutally extinguished freedom in places like Hungary. Unwise yes, immoral no. The number of innocents killed by the US in Vietnam was very very very small compared to the number of innocents the Allies killed in WW2. "I would like to see the day Hollywood appropriately deals with its government's attacks on its population, like Cointelpro." How about Waco and Ruby Ridge? Real killings as compared to intelligence ops.
- icr
December 31, 2008 at 3:34pm
I thought the absence of character development was an essential part of the plot; if the members of the RAF hadn't rigidly stuck to their convictions, history would have taken quite a different course.
- pom
January 2, 2009 at 3:55am
Thank you for your article. The true story of the violent left has been ignored too long. I wasn't surprised to see in comments the usual defense of the indefensible.
- bzedman
January 2, 2009 at 1:52pm
Jeff Herf's piece fails to mention the mostimportant point in the history of the RAF: Helmut Schmidt, Chancellor of Germany during the RAF's worst terrorism, in 1977, dealt firmly and successfully with their threat without ever sacrificing Germans' freedoms and civil liberties. Contrast Schmidt's achievement with thextra-legal conduct of our President Bush in his so-called war against terrorism. Robert Gerald Livingston, Senior Visiting Fellow, German Historical Institute, Washington
- Robert Gerald Livingston
January 2, 2009 at 5:00pm
@Erik Hellsten: "Mr Herf's interpretation of ... German history is strikingly selective... For one thing, he chooses to ignore and not recognize the truly vile nature of a German government that goes against its own people. First by participating in the US's war in Vietnam ... then by the dictatorial response to peaceful protests." --- There was no German participation in the Vietnam war at any time. The shooting of a student protester, Benno Ohnesorg, was not directed by the government. It occurred in 1967, whereas the major acts of RAF terrorism were committed in the 70s, when a different government had taken office. Mr. Hellsten's interpretation of German history reads like a message from a parallel universe.
- Mike
January 4, 2009 at 3:40pm
Well of course there's the usual equation of criticizing the German government with being pro-RAF. Predictable and a sign of very disciplined minds. One guy defends the government killing terrorists in dungeon holes. Deep resentment for universal human rights, but I suspect that particular fellow most others here disagree with. It's the equivalent of defending terrorism, but here it seems that state terrorism just isn't a big cause for outrage. The movie appropriately portrays both the German government's authoritarianism and RAF's cold-bloodedness. Herf only sees one of those aspects. When I emphasize the other in response it is not a defense of RAF. This is quite elementary, yet properly indoctrinated people just can't see that. They can't hold the two thoughts in their heads simultaneously. ---- Cointelpro is described by one commenter as "intelligence ops" when it actually included extemely vigorous undermining of popular movements from womens' groups, worker movements, black movements, etc etc. Huge program leading all the way up to political assassination. Much worse than Watergate but it has gone down the memory hole in American intelligentsia. The fact that people don't know what Cointelpro was shows in itself how badly Vergangenheitsbewältigung has been lacking. ---- Mike, watch the movie. Like I said, it starts with the police assaulting and killing protesters. If you think this had nothing to do with terrorist groups cropping up, you must be lacking some elementary social understanding. Are you saying this doesn't constitute authoritarianism because it wasn't directed by the government? Parallel universe indeed. I bet to the peaceful protesters seeing their own getting killed and assaulted by the police and Shah supporters would beg to differ. Also, Germany was making itself complicit in the destruction of Vietnam by letting US forces use their military facilities for its operations. Most importantly, it was doing this against the will of the *German* people. The American public turned against the war around 1968. In 1999 70% of the American population found the war "not a mistake" but "fundamentally wrong" and "immoral". I happen to be right in the mainstream with them.
- Erik Hellsten
January 5, 2009 at 10:43am
Assassinations linked to COINTELPRO? Who? Mark Clark and Fred Hampton? The killings were carried out by a unit of the Chicago Police Dept assigned to the Cook County State's Attorney's office. It would be hard to disentangle what influence COINTELPRO disinformation had on the cops' actions compared to the influences of the general social turmoil (including the killings of police officers) that was part of the Sixties Cultural Revolution. BTW, COINTELPRO was also directed against the KKK and similar white racist groups. Wikipedia estimates that 15% of FBI resources were directed against those targets. Considering that COINTELPRO occurred during a time of both war and social upheaval the reaction of the state security forces was hardly surprising. See, for example, the massive violations of civil liberties by the Lincoln and Wilson administrations. Also, we all know about FDR's internment camps and COINTELPRO-like ops against anti-interventionists. All pretty unseemly, but need to be placed in context-except maybe for the truly wretched Wilson administration I mentioned Waco and Ruby Ridge because these were bizarre military-type operations carried out against phantom enemies. It's always fun for certain types of "law enforcement" officials to squash the politically impotent like bugs.
- icr
January 7, 2009 at 6:33pm
Yes, Mark Clark and Fred Hampton. The murders were carried out by a tactical unit of the Cook County, Illinois State's Attorney's Office, in conjunction with the CPD and the FBI. FBI is the link to Cointelpro, but it doesn't really matter under which flag it was carried out. It all points to harsh authoritarianism in the society represented by the most important and powerful institutions of social order. Which might partly explain the reluctance of established intellectuals to talk about it. But the factor that G. Orwell pointed out is also important: ---- "At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." ---- Any highbrow periodical feeling identified? ---- Anyway, Cointelpro started in the 1950s and existed during four administrations, not just in time or war or so. The rationale was given by the FBI central office and was roughly this: (1) the Socialist Workers Party is openly running candidates in local elections throughout the country; (2) it supports integration in the South; (3) it supports Castro. That's a thought police. The KKK and isolated sects, just people wanting to live outside of society are also targeted, yes.
- Erik Hellsten
January 8, 2009 at 5:44pm
Btw Marcy, "The Weather Underground" was made in Australia, not America.
- ceallaghguy
January 28, 2009 at 3:35pm
interesting article--even more interesting discussion. the failure to mention "The Invisible Circus" a Hollywood movie w/ Cameron Diaz among others, is bewildering. The suicide of the main character, who has joined Baader Meinhof and committed murder, speaks eloquently to the consequences of choosing armed as opposed to organized political struggle against the State. even more bewildering is the lack of historical context--how can one see Baader Meinhof clearly without taking into account the Red Brigade, the IRA, the Basque separatists, even the Berlin Wall and the Polish labor struggle, etc. etc.? any discussion of the decision to commit to armed or bomb-throwing dissent should at least stem back to Emma Goldman's and Alex Berkman's clash in the late 19th century. Their labor struggles and anti-war stance reverberates still and, I know from first hand experience, was part of the ideological mindset of Baader Meinhof. My feeling remains that the decision to create armed struggle is coercive, ineffective and, ultimately, cowardly. I am one of the expatriot Americans who was recruited by Baader Meinhof while living in Germany in the mid-1970s. As I told them at that time, the real patriots, the true believers are the few people able, as was I, to enter the military industrial complex and attempt to destroy it or, at least forestall it, from within. The nearly base-wide strike I was instrumental in creating at the Air Force base in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1971, concurrent with the NY Times revelation of the defoliation bombing of Cambodia--I believe--was far more courageous and productive than any of the kidnappings, hijackings and bombings these so-called revolutionaries on either side of the pond are credited with committing. In fact, hundreds of such military strikes and shut-downs took place during the Vietnam War era and could be seen as contributing to the eventual military meltdown in Saigon. The military police--who even still operate with the least accountability of any armed force in the world--tried and succeeded in murdering most of the people responsible for such shut-downs. I survived--and have thus far met two others who survived. Where is the reportage, let alone the movie (!), pertaining to these?
- Douglas Farrow, SF, CA
January 30, 2009 at 4:48pm
Just food for thought if you're interested...read Ulrike Meinhof's Der Speilger articles in Everybody Talks About the Weather...We Don't. Also research our part in a little operation called, "Gladio."
- Ambyr Davis
February 20, 2009 at 1:26am