In light of recent attacks, someone mentioned that terror attacks are nothing new for the continent. My field of study is US, so my knowledge of the topic is severely limited, so I'm not able to really accurately judge that statement. I am aware of the Munich Olympic attacks, the IRA, and ETA, but not really aware of the historical context that led them to take their actions. Furthermore, I am not aware of other European groups and would like to learn more.
Few things:
When I say modern European history, I'm referring to postwar Europe until 1996 with a liberal definition of Europe, albeit excluding Turkey.
The definition of terrorism I'm using is broad: any action that uses violence to instill fear in a populace to accomplish political goals.
While I'm most interested in European terrorist groups, I'm certainly interested in non-European groups commiting terror attacks on the continent as well.
Looking for any sort of answer - Broad, thematic histories; focus on a particular region, group, or attack; or the politics of individual terrorists are potential topics that come to mind.
Finally, are there any journal articles or books that you would recommend? My school has access to JSTOR and a lot of other resources, so I'd like to toss some stuff on my reading list.
My specialty is left-wing European Terrorism of the 70s (and a bit of the 80s). So my answer is based on the era I study. Very very broadly speaking, it helps to differentiate internal independence struggles where terrorism was used as a tactic (such as the various iterations of the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland) as well as ETA in Northern Spain, and the much smaller movements that were active across the rest of Europe, including such groups as the Red Army Faction (often called "the Baader-Meinhof Gang), the Revolutionary Cells, and the June 2nd Movement in West Germany, Action Directe in France, the CCC in Belgium (I think), and Brigitte Rosa (the Red Brigades) in Italy.
Whereas in Northern Ireland and Northern Spain the supporters and active participants of the overall "war" could number in the tens of thousands, and reflected a broad-based struggle that had the support of a very significant percentage of the population they represented, the other groups I mentioned generally did not have a significant level of support for their specific, violent tactics.
Most of these groups in the second category could broadly be described as coming from the student movements that swept across the world in the late 1960s. Millions of young people protested in the streets... afterwards many continued the struggle by becoming part of the political system and working to effect change from within. But a few believed the answer was to attack the state in an effort to spark a Socialist Revolution (These groups were all some flavor of Socialism in nature; often settling on the Maoist-style Socialism that they felt was more people-oriented than the dominant Russian form).
In terms of the group with the largest number of attacks and the most significant support among the populace, the Red Brigades of Italy probably leads the pack. They were active for about 15 years from 1970 on, and is probably most well known for their kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro, a leading politician. Though I am not an expert in Brigitte Rosa, I believe a possible reason for their more widespread support was due to a stronger history of a communist party in their political system. I think it was just ever so slightly more reasonbl
My field of study focuses mostly on Germany. In broad terms, the challenge that the Red Army Faction presented to Germany had roughly the equivalent effect on West Germany that 9/11 did to the United States: it upended the society and basically changed everything. I won't analyze the US reaction to the challenge posed by Islamic Terrorism (so I don't violate the rules of this subreddit), but perhaps this description of how German responded will sound familiar:
-- A government that ushers in broad new laws to fight terrorism; yet the laws invariably are used for much more mundane issues and not to fight terrorism
-- A dramatically expanded internal national law enforcement apparatus.
-- The rise of a powerful right-wing press (Springer Press) that fed off of every scrap terrorism-related coverage possible, and became the dominant source of (right-slanted) news for West Germany, as well as a political force.
-- Treating captured terrorists in extrajudicial ways, with accusations of torture by Amnesty International, among others.
-- And the list could go on.
Another way to put what they did into context: Picture a terror group in America today kidnapping and killing, say, Apple's Tim Cook. Then killing the lead justice of the US Supreme Court. Then doing the same to US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. They murdered the equivalent people in Germay. They TERRIFIED people in Germany.
To better understand them, it helps to also understand that they never imagined they'd win any "war" with the German state themselves. They believed if they attacked the state through some bombings or kidnappings, the state would respond with such violent and reflexive anger that their response would be so out of proportion to the initial terrorist act that the people would recognize "hey, our government apparently is STILL a bunch of Nazis" and then the people themselves would rise up independently and continue the battle.
In retrospect it seems kind of insane that they believed there was a nation of people ready to fight this war with them. But these folks were a product of a decade that taught them that Socialism was the end state every society was moving towards; and Germany was in a state of "late capitalism" and just needed a vanguard to kickstart the Revolution and usher in a glorious Socialist utopia. They felt that they themselves should be the vanguard, but the rest would take care of itself because, well, it's self evident. It's just the way society worked; the people needed the spark provided by the vanguard, and then the people would take over (BTW, I am not being dismissive of their thinking, or supportive of their thinking, for that matter--I'm fairly left-of-center myself, but it doesn't factor much into my analysis of these groups. I'm simply trying to encapsulate their thinking from 40 years ago).
So interestingly, pro-Socialist movements were the flavor of the day in the early 1970s, so were you to look at groups like ETA and the Provisional IRA, you'd see a lot of socialist ideology in their communiques and writings as well. The same applies for many of the Palestinian guerrilla organizations. But in retrospect much of this could be chalked up to the Zeitgeist; and the willingness for organizations and people to follow along with a cold-war view of every national or international challenge. As the 80s raged, there were many terrorist acts in Europe that were the products of these left-wing home-grown groups, a growing trend of right-wing groups (particularly in Germany), as well as acts by Middle Eastern terrorists on European soil. The fall of the Berlin wall essentially was the nail in the coffin of the remaining left-wing groups; allowing for the rise of more militant right-wing groups (which never rose to the prominence of their left-wing fore bearers), and of course, the rise of Islamic-centric terrorism that has been active in Europe for the last 30 or so years, and especially in recent years, all they way up to, presumably, what happened today in Belgium.
If any of these groups is something your are interested in, let me know and I can provide some books that would help you dive deeper into them.
You mention the Munich attacs(Black september), the IRA and ETA- so ill mention;
Baader-Meinhof Group or Red Army Faction, RAF, was a west german group who during the cold war committed numerous murders, kidnappings and attacks i west Germany during the 70s, 80s.
Here is a great thread on the group! Great place to start as the group focuses on the unhealed scars of world war 2.