Talk:GSG 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


The GSG-9 that have done a mission in 2000 in philippines / please can u tell me more about it because i think i know it a bit The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

Never heard about such a mission....

I think I can tell you bit about it: In 2000 a family of German citizens was abducted on the Philippinnes by a islamistic militia. The officers of the GSG 9 should inform themselves and so on, but what exactly they did is classified as far as I know. M9IN0G 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Grenzschutzgruppe 9 is abbreviated GSG 9 and NOT GSG-9 ;)

We should transfer the article to "GSG 9" since even the German Federal Polic itself does not write GSG 9 out in full anymore (due to the renaming of the Bundesgrenzschutz (Federal Border Guard) to Bundespolizei (Federal Police)). If official language is used, it is now called "GSG 9 der Bundespolizei" (GSG 9 of the federal police).

Moved page to GSG 9. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

latest anti-terror-operation in Germany[edit]

what about the latest mission of GSG9 in Oberschledorn, Germany? It was all in the news, three terrorists who had been planning multiple attacks on targets such as Frankfurt Airport and Ramstein Ariforce base were arrested by police units lead by GSG9. The terrorists had been subject to intensive observations by BKA over the last months. I don't know enough about the whole issue to write something for the page, but I think someone better informed than me should do. It's one of the only publicly known anti-terror-missions of GSG9 in the post 9/11 era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actions of GSG9 usually are classified (until they make a movie out of it 30 years the "Mogadishu" TV film). So, unfortunately, there would be not much of a source for such missions. This sometimes is an aspect in media discussions, but officials don't seem to pay much attention to their requests. -- (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

world swat challenge[edit]

the paragraph under that heading is plagiarised from the world swat challenge site.04:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph and rewritten a one sentence summary. This was probably too long anyway. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Command Structure[edit]

The recently added sidebox says "Command structure: Directly under control of the Bundespolizei".

But on the official page of the German Federal Police I found this: "Die Entscheidung über den Einsatz der GSG 9 trifft das Bundesministerium des Innern (BMI). Näheres ist in einer besonderen Dienstanweisung für die GSG 9 geregelt." If I understand this correctly it means that the GSG 9 is directly under control of the Federal Ministry of the Interior.... Source:

They are part of the Federal Police but in case they shall be involved in any action the BMI (Ministery of the Interior) decides. But I'm not sure how we should write that into the box. M9IN0G 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Body Count Lies?[edit]

Officially they used weapons only in four cases, two of which were against dogs. That leaving two against humans (Mogadishu and Bad Kleinen), who shot the guy at Aachen? 10:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

According to official GSG 9 records, weapons were used in Aachen as the hijacker was shot by two GSG 9 officers executing so-called 'final rescue shots'. The course of events has been as following: The hijacker was convinced to leave the central bank by the proposal to provide a car for the hijacker's escape. However, the hijacker left the bank using a male hostage as a human shield. Therefore he had chosen to keep one hand under the hostage's sweatshirt holding a grenade which was connected to the hijacker's wrist by wire. The commanding officer decided to kill the hijacker using two sniper-rifles simultaneously and defusing the grenade with the hostage kneeling on the ground and the dead corpse over the victim's shoulder.

Yeah, the Aachen episode was also mentioned in the GSG 9 documentary. Coincidentally, that documentary is where that claim of 'weapons use in only four cases' comes from, but if I remember correctly from the documentary, the Aachen episode was sometime in 1999, give or take a year. I think that was also around the time the documentary was released, so my guess is Aachen happened while the documentary was being made.

Organization section[edit]

This section could use a clean up, as it is not necessary to make such subsections and only have one sentence per section. Maybe making it a table? Imasleepviking 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of RAF for Red Army Faction[edit]

I think the use of RAF to abbreviate Red Army Faction could be confusing, especially in a military context, with the British Royal Air Force, although this is a largely German related article, so it could make sense.

Operation Feuerzauber[edit]

The translation given in the article is "Operation Fire Magic", while a ...zauber is a magic spell, so "Operation Fire Spell" would be closer to the original meaning. Not sure if "Operation Fire Magic" has been used in any official texts regarding the matter - maybe someone could check that and change the article if it seems appropriate? 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that "Fire Spell" could be considered a more appropriate translation. However, "Fire Magic" seems to be widely used in the English speaking world (as far as one can consider 263 google results as "widely"; there is only one google result for "Operation Fire Spell", which, coincidentally, is this page). There also seems to be an entry in the "SAS Encyclopedia" by Barry Davies: "Assault on LH181: The True Story of Operation Fire Magic", which I take as a definite reason to stick with "Fire Magic". -- 10:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

From the article Lufthansa Flight 181: "Members of the British SAS were not directly involved in the operation, as it is often reported; in fact they were only observers.". While this article states "... while members of the GSG 9 supported by two British SAS operatives stormed the plane". Probably nobody knows the truth but one should not take it as a fact either.

After a TV Documentation about the Landshut the SAS members where only there to provide technical support for the use of flash bangs (it was a new technologie and i think only britain had some) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What is so "magic" about lying to the hijackers and using this method to defeat them? This should not have been done, firstly because lying is a behaviour unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman, secondly because this trick can only be played once. Next time the next hijacker gang will not believe the authorities, even if the state sincerely wants to negotiate a hostage-prisoner swap and will start to cull hostages, simply because they know from prior experience that the authories cannot be trusted to speak honestly. This was really shameful of the GSG9 and probably led to much more many hostage deaths in the later hijackings, all around the world! (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy for SWAT Championship[edit]

Information about this is listed twice. I would remove one, but they seem to contradict each other. Under the section "History" it says

From 1972 to 2003 they reportedly completed over 1,500 missions, with only 5 shots being fired.[attribution needed] At the S.W.A.T. championship in 2005, GSG 9 won an impressive seven out of seven events, beating 17 other teams. In March 2006, in the same competition, GSG 9 defended its championship. "Team GSG-9, the Federal Border Police of Germany, swept the competition and won all seven events."

Under "Miscellaneous" it says

The German GSG 9 team won every event at the 2005 SWAT World Challenge in Las Vegas, beating 17 other teams. In 2006 they again gained the victory with first place in four of the eight different competitions of World SWAT Challenge. However, in 2007 they only made over-all fifth place.

If someone could verify which one is correct, then delete the incorrect one. I believe the first quote was added last. This sections also has some weasel wording (in the sentence before) and peacock terms (swept away the competion) and it seems it's a POV addition about GSG 9 and I would say the last paragraph is correct. But I haven't verified. Perhaps someone with some knowledge could do that. --Fogeltje (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gsg9insignia.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Gsg9insignia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Information on Cologne/Bonn Incident[edit]

I removed the information about that incident because even though I checked dozends of sources in German and English I found no evidence for the GSG 9 involved in it. To the best of my knowledge there was not even an actual storming of the airplane but ordinary policemen (no Sondereinsatzkomando) went on board of the airplane. Not only that; the information that two Somali citizens were taken into custody definitely is wrong. The German police explicitly stated that it were a Somali citizen and a German citizen born in Mogadishu. Jsde (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


I think this section should be dropped as there are no references given and I doubt there will ever be. Hence most of the section is mere speculation and should be removed or referenced. Since I am no expert in this matter, I shall not do that myself. Thanks, (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is adopted from the german GSG9 page. U r right most of them is just speculative cause of the security but some of them are obviously, for example the MP5, MP7, G36, HK416 and the HK USP. Its a special unit, u wont find so many information about it.-- (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The 416 was never used by the GSG 9 'till now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


EOD and IED should be spelled out completely or linked to the respective (correct) Wiki article. There are ambiguation pages for both and although the connection to explosives seems to be the most reasonable one, e.g. IED could also refer to "Intelligent electronic device". Could somebody please straighten this out? Not everyone around here is a SWAT professional. Thanks, (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New discussion ****

"is the elite counter-terrorism and special operations unit of the German Federal Police and is considered to be among the best of its kind in the world. Many nations have modelled their counter-terrorism units after the GSG 9. Contents"

This is untrue and inaccurate, gsg9 was modelled after the SAS and many GSG9 members were trained by SAS. The SAS themselves being the unit that nearly all special forces are modelled on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

'Yes, and it's obvious, because the unit has been created in the 70s. The text with the info concerning the modelling of the GSG9 along the line of the SAS (SAS officers even trained the first GSG9 forces) has been deleted, but I don't know why and by who. This should be mentionned in the articleJohnny2323 (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Comparable units list section.[edit]

Is this list needed? Most of the units listed on it don't have similar lists on their page. I only see these lists on better known, established teams articles. It almost comes off as a "me too" listing for some lesser known ones. Do we need this list? Does it enhance THIS article? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. I think we could leave a reference to the SAS which would make sense but I really don't get the point of having such a long list with special forces around the world. I would suggest we go ahead and erase most of it since I don't believe that it doesn't enhance the article in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Der rikkk (talkcontribs) 13:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees, I will shorten the section about comparable units in the next few days. Again, this section should only give an idea of what units the GSG 9 can be compared to, i.e. SAS, or Sayeret Matkal. It is NOT supposed to be a copy of the article about the list of special units worldwide. --Der rikkk (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Der rikkk

I replaced the list with a link to "List of special response units". As stated before, the GSG9 article is not supposed to be a copy of that list. --Der rikkk (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Which countrries modeled their special units....[edit]

I know that saudi-arabias SF are very close to them, because Wegener helped the king to form them.-- (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Just read the first paragraph of the histroy section, where it talks about the Munich Massacare. It seems biased against Germany and their police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Its formation was based on the expertise of the Israeli Sayeret Matkal."[edit]

Is there a source available for this? This is a bit new to me and I havent read it elsewhere as well. -- (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Yes there was a german documentary on behalf of an anniversary that aired 2013. There was stated from both German and Israeli officials that they trained togethernin the early days and now.

"The identity of GSG 9 members is classified as top secret"[edit]

Top secret would mean that releasing those names would "endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany [...]". I would guess it's only confidential. But as long as there is no source, maybe it would be better to write just classified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald Meier (talkcontribs) 16:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

GSG 9 is not anymore an abbriviaton!! It is just GSG 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Is there a reason the infobox for law enforcement agencies is used instead of the one for military units? GSG9 ist no agency, it is a unit of the German Federal Police, which is an agency. Even though GSG9 isn't exactly a military unit, I think from its content the infobox for military units would make more sense. What do you all think? Der rikkk (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on GSG 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Elected minister responsible[edit]

In the info box it says Elected minister responsible. But German cabinet-level ministers are, according to Cabinet of Germany: "... appointed (and dismissed) by the President upon proposal of the Chancellor." So, not elected.-- (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

True character of GSG9[edit]

Paramilitary GSG9 happens to be in charge of secret executions. It also works on private orders. A mafia group occasionally serving the government. In 1977, this group faked suicides of leftist Baader-Meinhof militants.

They operate worldwide and use advanced satellite technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on GSG 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)