WI: The Munich Olympic Hostage Crisis, but with the IRA and the British Team instead

[Gillan1220]

I wonder how does Germany respond to this? Obviously GSG9 still becomes a thing but would they want to get "payback" for this sort of thing?

Well the 1970s being the era of contemporary terrorism also was the decade of counterterrorist units making their debut. This included the SAS, Delta Force, GIGN, and Israeli commandos doing CT ops.

The 1970s and the Birth of Contemporary Terrorism

While terrorism worldwide has increased over the past four decades — and the threat of terrorism continues to dominate Americans' fears — the 14 years since 9/11 have been tranquil on the home front compared to the violent 1970s.

www.rand.org

 

[sparky42]

Well the 1970s being the era of contemporary terrorism also was the decade of counterterrorist units making their debut. This included the SAS, Delta Force, GIGN, and Israeli commandos doing CT ops.

The 1970s and the Birth of Contemporary Terrorism

While terrorism worldwide has increased over the past four decades — and the threat of terrorism continues to dominate Americans' fears — the 14 years since 9/11 have been tranquil on the home front compared to the violent 1970s.

www.rand.org

It was also the decade that the Irish Ranger Wing was created, wonder with such a high profile Provo action would they get expanded quicker?

 

[Gillan1220]

It was also the decade that the Irish Ranger Wing was created, wonder with such a high profile Provo action would they get expanded quicker?

Seeing an IRA attack on the British team in the Olympics, yes the Irish military would definitely invest and be pressured by the British to create a better CT team.

 

[jsb]

They may not have a dedicated counterterrorist unit, but they do have British military forces in Germany, and the Bonn government might be told they aren't getting a say in the matter.

Would Bonn not be secretly relatively very happy and relived to hand the issue over to the "occupation powers" and get out of having to do anything? Even if it all goes wrong, It's mostly on UK forces themselves and there is less risk to the critical relationships with a large NATO ally?

 

[Rinasoir]

Would Bonn not be secretly relatively very happy and relived to hand the issue over to the "occupation powers" and get out of having to do anything? Even if it all goes wrong, It's mostly on UK forces themselves and there is less risk to the critical relationships with a large NATO ally?

Oh I'm not saying Bonn wouldn't be relived, just that instead of the British asking for permission, it would be a case of "We are intervening, you can do whatever you want, but we are doing it."

 

[sparky42]

Seeing an IRA attack on the British team in the Olympics, yes the Irish military would definitely invest and be pressured by the British to create a better CT team.

It might depend, unless the attack was directly linked to a cell in the Republic I’d bet the response would have been, “it’s your ball, you deal with it” if it was a NI based action, given the mood between Dublin and London. By the mid 70s there was 300 Rangers supporting border operations, not sure given the ceiling of the DF how much larger it could realistically be, or how much more equipment they could have given the state of the economy.

 

[white crowe]

While it's unlikely the IRA would attack British athletes in general, there's always been a very "freeman on the land" -esque strand of Republican thought which can obsess over fairly theoretical technicalities.

I think it's plausible that this tendency could see some cells targeting a British equestrian team if it had any commissioned officers in it.

 

[naraic]

While it's unlikely the IRA would attack British athletes in general, there's always been a very "freeman on the land" -esque strand of Republican thought which can obsess over fairly theoretical technicalities.

I think it's plausible that this tendency could see some cells targeting a British equestrian team if it had any commissioned officers in it.

I was thinking about this.

There have been something like 50 British active duty military Olympians since WW2 and something like 200 former military (people who signed up for short terms of service and got out of the military in their early 20s usually).

Were there any/many in that particular Olympics?

 

[David Flin]

Of course, if one wanted a high profile Olympic attack by the IRA against the British squad, 1976 is a better year.

What with Princess Anne being in the equestrian team.

 

[white crowe]

Of course, if one wanted a high profile Olympic attack by the IRA against the British squad, 1976 is a better year.

What with Princess Anne being in the equestrian team.

And, as Colonel-in-Chief of the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment, she would of course be a perfectly legitimate military target.

 

[Garrison]

While it's unlikely the IRA would attack British athletes in general, there's always been a very "freeman on the land" -esque strand of Republican thought which can obsess over fairly theoretical technicalities.

I think it's plausible that this tendency could see some cells targeting a British equestrian team if it had any commissioned officers in it.

If one looks at the list of IRA victims it becomes clear they were anything but discriminating when it came to selecting targets.

 

[David Flin]

If one looks at the list of IRA victims it becomes clear they were anything but discriminating when it came to selecting targets.

To be more specific, the tendency was to get a loose definition of a target; the issue was a complete lack of concern about collateral damage. The Birmingham pub bombings, for example, were supposedly aimed at pubs that squaddies frequented. The fact that there were a whole bunch of IBs involved as well wasn't a factor.

The Remembrance Day killings was a similar example of a breath-taking casualness towards collateral damage.

As far as the British Equestrian team of the 1976 Olympics is concerned, the fact that it contained a member of the Royal Family would have been sufficient justification. Collateral damage would not have been a concern. (cf the Mountbatten assassination).

 

[The Tai-Pan]

To be more specific, the tendency was to get a loose definition of a target; the issue was a complete lack of concern about collateral damage. The Birmingham pub bombings, for example, were supposedly aimed at pubs that squaddies frequented. The fact that there were a whole bunch of IBs involved as well wasn't a factor.

The Remembrance Day killings was a similar example of a breath-taking casualness towards collateral damage.

As far as the British Equestrian team of the 1976 Olympics is concerned, the fact that it contained a member of the Royal Family would have been sufficient justification. Collateral damage would not have been a concern. (cf the Mountbatten assassination).

Would the IRA want that much negative international press though?

 

[white crowe]

Would the IRA want that much negative international press though?

Many wouldn't but the pseudo-legal mental model of some wouldn't see why any one could take issue with an army killing a colonel in chief of an army that they were at war with.

I believe that was among the justifications for why a 79 year old man and his family on yachting trip was a legitimate military target.

 

[David Flin]

Would the IRA want that much negative international press though?

They tried to kill the British PM. Twice. Failed both times. First time, there were significant collateral casualties.

They did assassinate the British Ambassador to the Republic, in 1976, again with no concern about collateral damage.

I think the assumption was that the Irish American demographic was fully capable of justifying anything and didn't care about collateral damage; that the sponsors didn't care because trouble was the whole point, and no-one else mattered.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

They tried to kill the British PM. Twice. Failed both times. First time, there were significant collateral casualties.

They did assassinate the British Ambassador to the Republic, in 1976, again with no concern about collateral damage.

I think the assumption was that the Irish American demographic was fully capable of justifying anything and didn't care about collateral damage; that the sponsors didn't care because trouble was the whole point, and no-one else mattered.

Oh, I agree. The IRA didn't care about killing lots of people. But all of those are aimed in a strictly UK only context. The Olympics are a different sort of venue.

 

[sparky42]

They tried to kill the British PM. Twice. Failed both times. First time, there were significant collateral casualties.

They did assassinate the British Ambassador to the Republic, in 1976, again with no concern about collateral damage.

I think the assumption was that the Irish American demographic was fully capable of justifying anything and didn't care about collateral damage; that the sponsors didn't care because trouble was the whole point, and no-one else mattered.

My main experience with such groups was when I was over in Boston, one night in an Irish pub they were ”fundraising for the cause”, didn’t take to kindly to the only actually Irish in the pub being “hostile” to the idea, and this was in the 00s post GFA and 9/11 and yet the ragtag “dissident” groups refusing the Peace Process were still being celebrated by the idiots…

Also don’t forget the were also killings of Irish politicians by the Provos as well.

 

[arrowiv]

One point the film One Day in September and numerous books make is that there is the possibility of DDR complicity in the Black September attack on the Olympic Village. I don't know if it is true or not but that possibility may exist. Would the Stasi really make a fool out of itself supporting an IRA attack on the Olympics at the same time there is a big DDR delegation mining for gold medals in Munich?