alternatehistory.com

When I look at the so-called hot autumn between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Red Army Fraction terrorists I ask myself why two ways were not employed:

A) The RAF claimed their people were soldiers in a struggle against the FRG and therefore POW when captured.
Why not accept it.
If the FRG had accepted a Declaration of War by the RAF then the RAF members in prison could be judged according to martial law based upon the Geneva Convention.
And the Geneva Convention has four conditions for soldiers:
1) Weapons must be worn openly
2) A sign that can be recognized at 100 meters to show you are an enemy soldier
3) a clear chain of command
4) Obeying the rules of warfare

Now in WWI it was made clear by Q-ships that rule 1) and 2) can be bent, if both rules are obeyed at least one second before opening fire.
But rule 4) clearly states that civilians may not be hurt as long as they do not attack soldiers of the other side.
So we have two warcrimes (rule 2 as no RAF member ever wore a uniform or a certain sign and rule 4 with Ponto, Buback and Schleyer) and that means gallows or shot at dawn.

And if the leftwing supporters try to make civil war then you can easily charge them with a warcrime (rule2) as no sign or uniform was used by the RAF or its supporters.
And that means more gallows or shot at dawn.


B) Why not release those RAF terrorists but poison them, you know Polonium 209? As the RAF had no compuction about killing civilians (the Driver of Schleyer was not armed, he was just a driver)), why not respond in kind?
Top