“No state responds to a terrorist campaign without changing its institutions and hence society itself, even if only slightly,” Stephen Sobieck states in his chapter on Democratic Responses to International Terrorism in Germany. Politically motivated terrorism struck the heart of both Germany and Italy in the 1970’s and 1980’s causing each state to do exactly what Sobieck stated. Both countries, unfortunately, suffered severe casualties, infrastructure damage, and threats from right and left wing terrorist organizations triggering these countries to adopt policy changes. This included a restructured legislation, the addition of new laws, and the modification current laws. Both countries political agendas and perceptions caused significant complications affecting each state’s ability to handle the rising threat. Germany’s political setting suffered intense rivalry between the two levels of government: the Bund (national government) and the Lander (states). Italy had similar political struggles on the perception and ideology of terrorism impacting the country. The dominated Christian Democratic Party (DC), whose primary goal was to pleas the public opinion, viewed terrorism based off political interests. The two rival parties, whose strength grew towards the end of the 1970s, included the Italian Communist Party (PCI) and the Movimento Sociale Italaino party (MSI). It took the Italian political classes five years to alert themselves seriously to the problem of terrorism.
With the issues facing the political parties, both countries inappropriately utilized their security forces. Each state had qualified and effective security units that were essentially ineffective to the political agendas faced within the country. The GSG...
... middle of paper ...
...changing their societies.
Works Cited
Stephen M. Sobieck, “Democratic Responses to International Terrorism in Germany,” in David A. Charters (ed.), The Deadly Sin of Terrorism: Its Effect on Democracy and Civil Liberties in Six Countries, 66.
Luciana Stortoni-Wortmann, “The Police Response to Terrorism in Italy from 1969 to 1983,” in Reinares (ed.), European Democracies Against Terrorism, 148.
Donatella della Porta, “Institutional Responses to Terrorism: The Italian Case,” Terrorism and Political Violence, 4: 4, 1992, 156-158.
John E. Finn, Constitutions in Crisis. Political Violence and the Rule of Law, 211.
Sobieck, “Democratic Responses to International Terrorism in Germany,” 53.
Stortoni-Wortmann, “The Police Response to Terrorism,” 151.
Ibid., 156-157.
Sobieck, “Democratic Responses to International Terrorism in Germany,” 60-61.
A famous quote by FDR at his First Inaugural Address was, “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself” came to mind when thinking of most European democracies position’s when it came to the military aggression by Italy and Germany. However, it is easy to understand why they would make concessions, albeit short-lived, rather than run the risk of another World War and all of the noxious energy that comes with it. On the other hand, to trust the “devilish nature” of both Hitler and Mussolini would turn out to be costly moves that were fortunately corrected by the strength of the United States and its Allies in time.
...e argued the importance of public denunciations towards the success of the terror system and the Gestapo. Gellately makes it clear that without the help of private citizens the Gestapo would not have had as strong and organized of a reputation as they had. Yet, it should not be ignored that the Gestapo was brutal in its negotiation techniques, and that reputation could induce fear into public cooperation. It may be true that the general public instilled more fear into themselves about the capabilities of the Gestapo through volunteering information, than the Gestapo itself, but that should not imply that the Gestapo was not a creator of fear in that era.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
Jeffrey David Simon, The Terrorist Trap: America's Experience with Terrorism, 2nd ed. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001), 188-89.
Ginsborg P (1990). ‘A History of Contemporary Italy: Society and Politics: 1943-1980’ Published by Penguin; Reprint edition (27 Sep 1990).
7 May 2010 “Fascism in Germany and Italy.” Online Essays. 10 July 2007. 7 May 2010 “Italian Fascism.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
Getty, J. Arch, and Oleg V. Naumov. The Road to Terror. London, England: Yale University Press, 1999.
Kash, Douglas A. “An International Legislative Approach to 21st-Century Terrorism.” The Future of Terrorism: Violence in the New Millennium. Ed. Harvey W. Kushner. London: Sage Publications, 1998.
Response to terrorism. FreeRepublic, LLC, 10 Febuary 2001. Web. 5 Apr. 2014. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/537799/posts.
Rothe, D. & Muzzatti, S.L. 2004. Enemies everywhere: Terrorism, moral panic and US civil society. Critical Criminology. 1(12): 327–350.
It is true that the Italian dictatorship was more conservative in its application than that of Hitler’s reign of terror. But, both the fascist ideas and rulings of these two leaders proved to have some similarities worth mentioning. Both leaders left their countries with an economic and social debt to the Allies, which is still strong in the minds of many older members of the community.
...ign Policy Crises and the Resort to Terrorism: A Time-Series Analysis of Conflict Linkages. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Volume 40 No. 2, 320-321.
Mary Habeck, Knowing the Enemy, Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror (Yale University, 2001), 171.
8) ?After the Attack?The War on Terrorism? (2001). Online at: <http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101edit.htm>, consulted on March 29th, 2004.
Terrorism will happen again regardless of how prepared the U.S. thinks it may be. This means that it is the country’s job to ensure that there is a continuation of measures that should be taken to fight against terrorism. Others believe that the U.S. is fully prepared for another terrorist attack and that enough has been done. The question at hand is, should the U.S. still be concerned about terrorism. The United States needs to be concerned about terrorism to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again, to address problems with domestic terrorism, and to improve homeland security.