Michail Logvinov


On the basis of case studies from the history of right-wing terrorism in Germany after the Second World War, this essay presents indicators relevant for terrorism in detail. Here, the author focusses on four dimensions of analysis: actors, ideologies, reference groups, and general conditions with the indicators which can be associated with them. These, on the other hand, serve as projection surfaces for an analysis of possible and plausible sub-indicators, which light up the danger dimensions of right-wing extremism in the sense of their relevance for terrorism. Basically, the essay concentrates on the question, under which conditions and in which constellations one has to expect the transgression of the terrorist violence threshold. Right-wing actors who have these described features in common require special attention both by security authorities and extremism research. Although the introduced analysis model of terrorism-relevant indicators and danger factors of right-wing extremism must only be understood as a first approach to this complex phenomenon, the analysis raster can contribute to illuminate multi-causally and multi-dimensionally correspondent conditions (of origins) in the sense of risk analysis. The advantage of this analysis model is that it includes the dangers of right-wing terrorism on the one hand, and that on the other hand it may help to identify possible developments of right-wing scenes towards terrorism in the risk context. The risk-analytical procedure would start on the level of sub-indicators and/or danger factors and go on with considering relevant constellations on the indicator level. It iss elf-evident that the analysis pattern requires a further refinement tailored to the specifics of past and present right-wing extremism and right-wing terrorism. Furthermore, it is important to find out which concrete constellations of danger factors can lead to terrorist output in right-wing terrorism. For this reason, a holistic and comparative study of right-wing terrorist actors with a view on the suggested analysis dimensions and (sub-)indicators would be necessary. As a second step, violent groups should be analysed, which - despite their instrumental use of violence - so far have not applied terrorist methods for determining possible protective factors („resilience“). After that, a comparative disquisition on similarly conditioned groups, distinguished only by the criterion „use of violence“, ought to have taken place as a logical sequence of radicalization steps. Such a research program would have facilitated propositions on why actors use politically motivated violence and why they overcome the terrorism threshold. Despite possibly existing hiatuses and/or distortions, the indicator/danger factor model seems to be a promising analysis instrument, because it helps assessing the logic and danger potential of right-wing terrorist actors and right-wing extremistic groups.