Re "radical": I don't think my definition is restrictive, to the contrary, I think some cricles use it too loosely.

Regarding the Republikaner, even the present-day party demands the abolition of the right for asylum (even church asylum, which is rather strange for a party speaking about a superior "Christian-Occidental culture"), which I'd consider a rather radical change. They also demand the abolition of the Verfassungsschutz [Office for the Protection of the Constitution, created to monitor groups suspected of an intent to overthrow the democratic order, like the Nazis did], and the re-creation of Prussia state, which would change Germany rather strongly; and 'total' freedom of speech, which is a transparent sop for Holocaust deniers.

However, the Republikaner that earned the far-right reputation, and the one I am much familiar with, was the time of Franz Schönhuber (until 1994). That was much nastier, they xenophoby was without qualifications, they had no qualms about integrating hardcore ex-Nazis and neo-Nazis, and cooperation with DVU and NPD (the other two, harder far-right parties) foundered only on personalities (who should be the leader). (One small episode from that time I remember fondly was how a Turkish village, upon learning what that nice German gentleman who bought a holiday home does at home, declared Schönhuber an unwelcome person...)

Regarding violence against policemen, I don't know which specific utterance you mean (and thus whether I'd interpret it similarly to you). However, either way, I could surely quote CDU members approving violence by policemen against political demonstrators  -- or worse, deported foreigners. But this is a cultural war of incompatible worldviews that won't lead anywhere. Instead, some deviations:

1. I imagine I would have a hard time explaining how I, personally, think <both> violent protesters and violent policemen can be both right and wrong, and how observers can be wrong about both the the assumption of justified and unjustified violence, by both protesters and policemen; and that without being accused of equivocation. However, to get my perspective across in a different context, I refer you to some of my writing on the Budapest riots in 2006 and 2007 -- where the rioters were on the right and the 'police supporters' on the Right: on the first riot (see the comments), Scary (if you check just one, check this), second major riot, The Day Budapest Burns To Cinder (or not) (third major riot and precedents, with in-person observations).

2. At a level of principles, on the topic of violence against practicioners of the state monopoly on violence, I quote some official documents:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
(United States Declaration of Independence)

The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
(Constitution of New Hampshire)
(Constitution of North Carolina)
(With slight differences, Constitution of Tennessee)

First, there is a difference between claimed intent, and real or expected practice. In Schäuble's case, that's the difference between his claims to spy on al-Qaida cells (which you may perceive), and widely held fears of spying powers used to spy on a lot more people. There was such a difference for Stasi 1.0, too: the official rhetoric of the dictatorship was about catching spies and saboteurs, but the practice was the surveillance and blackmail of millions.

Second, there is the slippery slope aspect. just as Nazism wasn't bad only after it killed 6 million Jews (and Gypsies and homosexuals and communists) in death camps but already a decade earlier, one shouldn't just look at the end state of Stasi 1.0 as the largest state surveillance bureaucracy ever. The Stasi grew into that over years. So, Schäuble's push for increased use of surveilance with decreased checks and balances can be seen as leading down a path.

I'm sorry if you found my first statement harsh

No, I more found it challenging to a respectful debate :-) I'm just passionate about my opinions.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

As far as I know the original "Großer Lauschangriff" is rather old (I'm 25 years old) and I don't know what exactly was the original proposal.

OK. You were then 15 resp. 21 years old when the important stuff happened.

The original Großer Lauschangriff was approved by CDU+FDP Bundestag majority in the last year of the Kohl government, in early 1998. It's aim was to enable police to monitor any suspect anywhere, that is also in their homes, and also journalists and pastors. Then the Bundesrat de-fanged it, but not completely. So some people -- checking, it was dissident FDP members led by Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger -- called up the constitutional court, which decided only in 2004: they didn't quash the entire law, but many of its implementation provisions. Proposals to expand it came thereafter, first from Zypries's ministry in Schröder years in the form of the supposed replacement of what the constitutional court tossed out, which was abandoned, then demands from Schäuble and others.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}