The Red Army Faction Accuses the Federal Republic of Germany: Debating Democratic Principles during the “Stammheim Trial,” 1975-1977

In 1970s Western Europe, the trials of leftist militants sparked strong public debates about the legitimacy of the European state and its rule of law, such as the West German Higher Regional Court Stuttgart’s trial against four leaders of the Red Army Faction (RAF) from 1975-1977 (“Stammheim Trial”). Citizens and state officials argued over how to improve internal security through counterterrorist practices and yet protect civil liberties from related infractions. Trials made spectacular public forums for these debates, as militant defendants accused prosecutors of authoritarian overreach, and judicial officials emphasized their adherence to democratic principles.

The RAF leaders’ trial provides a valuable example for the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). Through media reports and court documents, this paper traces the confrontation between the defendants and the FRG state, highlighting how both utilized the trial to propagate their interpretation of West German democracy to domestic and international audiences. The defendants accused the FRG of unduly harsh incarceration conditions and due process violations. Portraying the FRG as inherently undemocratic, they garnered substantial public support. Legal and law enforcement officers struggled to balance an expressive adherence to due process with conflicting newly adopted internal security requirements, such as restrictions on the number of defense lawyers. While the defendants saw themselves as unjustly persecuted political prisoners, the prosecution sought to validate the FRG’s democratic institutions domestically and in the rest of Europe. Though the defendants garnered substantial media attention, the FRG state succeeded in presenting a robust democracy, which protected its citizens’ civil liberties.