Blue Sheet Questions!

Blue Sheet!

 

1.       The opposition to the German Authorities, as developed and implemented by the first generation of Baader-Meinhof group members needs to be defined. How did they organize their protest? What actions did they execute?

The protests started off as rally’s and semi peaceful displays. However they quickly escalated to bombings of federal buildings, kidnappings, and the occasional murder of a cop.

 

2.       In what ways did your level of identification with the group change from the beginning of the movie to the end.

I never really identified. I always found them to be radical terrorists. They didn’t even begin to try to pursue a peaceful way of changing the way the government was set up. I don’t think that they accomplished anything other than killing a bunch of cops. Though I disagreed with the German governments absolute apathy towards its citizens in the Iranian attack, I felt that the counter attack made by the RAF was equally inappropriate. The government should protect its citizens.

3.       Did the determination and rudeness displayed by Andreas Baader have a key role in the group dynamics, and in what ways?

Absolutely, his crazy ass determined the culture of the group. He was the one pushing for more violent outbursts. Pushing from a protest to a downright terrorist organization. His idea of how to liberate the people may have actually given the government more power to control the populace. He was reckless, and needlessly endangering the lives of others.

4.       I want a brief debate in class about force and non-legal ways of protest. I will aks students to stand in the corner of those who oppose violence under any circumstance- the Pacifists- and opposite them students who would agree to employ violence as a means to change society and political systems. Those who cannot decide stay in the middle.

Now I want to hear reasons, arguments, and attempts from each side to convince the other. People from the middle can join either group at any time. Students can even change sides mid game.

I noticed that once people picked a side it was evident they weren’t going to swap. Despite how persuasive the argument. I also noticed there wasn’t a very good choice. Violence is necessary, or violence is never necessary. Where as I was of a somewhat different mindset. Aggression should only be used as an absolute last resort and only when there is no other choice. Violence should only be used in A kill or be killed scenario. Diplomacy should be used in every ounce of the fight even long after it’s clear that it’s failed. A change of heart no matter how unlikely is always a small possibility, and what do we have if not hope.