"German army needs to remove WW2-era names:..." Topic

… defense minister.

"The names of German military barracks honoring a handful of World War Two officers should changed to show that the country's post-war armed forces have made a clean break from their Nazi past, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said on Sunday.

Having come in for criticism herself after accusing the Bundeswehr armed forces of "weak leadership" amid a national debate over whether there are right-wing extremists in the military, von der Leyen told Bild am Sonntag newspaper the barracks should no longer be named after Nazi-era officers.

"The Bundeswehr has to send signals both internally and externally that it is not rooted in the tradition of the Wehrmacht," she said, referring to the World War Two-era name for the German army. The Bundeswehr was created in 1955…"
Main page
link

Erwin Rommel?…

Amicalement
Armand

Out of the question. Rommel was, at least for a time, Hitler's favorite general. Besides, he's overrated and only lionized in America.

Under the current climate and amidst all the Nazi-phobia, I doubt even Hitler's would-be assassin Claus von Stauffenberg (you know, the guy played by Tom Cruise in 'Valkyrie') would pass muster because he was a decorated member of the Wehrmacht who distinguished himself in combat.

I don't think the Bundeswehr needs to worry about being confused with the Wehrmacht--or any other hard-fighting and aggressive force, come to that.

Germany will at some point regret trying to wipe out its military traditions. I hope we won't be regretting it right beside them.

Does anyone know who they DO regard as suitable persons to name barracks after?

And I answered my own question.

link

I counted maybe 8 pre-WWII military names, though I'm sure there were others I didn't recognize. The WWII names listed had impeccable credentials. I think the idea is to build an army without a tradition. I don't think it will work.

They named a barracks after Wrede. What sort of people would name a barracks after Wrede? ("I could make him a prince, but I couldn't make him a general."--Napoleon looking over Wrede's dispositions prior to the Battle of Hanau.)

LOL.

They've got a lot more to worry about, from the other end of the spectrum, than the one they're focusing on.

Ultra-PC zealots running amok.

"Besides, he's overrated and only lionized in America."

I look at the British movies, books and various games (board and video) that have come out over the last 70+ years all about Rommel and wonder where the hell that statement came from…

@TGerritsen
+1

They named a barracks after Wrede. What sort of people would name a barracks after Wrede? ("I could make him a prince, but I couldn't make him a general."--Napoleon looking over Wrede's dispositions prior to the Battle of Hanau.)

The Wrede family provided several generals to the Bavarian Army. I suspect the barracks may be named for one of the later or earlier ones.

I wonder who the replacement names will be? How about Mehmet the Conqueror or Suleiman the Magnificent?

The climate of guilt and self loathing is what will ultimately undo the West.

rmaker, maybe--but it is Furst Wrede Kasserne." I'd have gone with Von Der Tann, maybe. But you notice while their fussing about "Nazi era" names," they also don't seem to be using any of Biamark's generals either.

Is this worse then naming US bases after Confederate generals. They were all traitors after all fighting to preserve slavery. Which is worse, slavery or Genocide?

Not a bad question…

Amicalement
Armand

And THIS is what Germany is worried about?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, and Doug…You do know that something like 1.6% of the population of the CSA owned slaves, so I highly doubt that "they" were fighting for "slavery".

Derp.

I suppose they WILL be coming for all those forts, streets, schools (this latter is already happening), etc. named after Confederate veterans, eventually, once all those wicked statues are gone and the country STILL finds itself with a racial problem. More history thrown down the Memory Hole will solve that! Right….

I read that some of the anti-Rebs in New Orleans also want to remove the Joan of Arc statue (which was recently vandalized) and other French artifacts, so all European influences on the city -- inherently evil -- can not be seen.

Oh, and Doug…You do know that something like 1.6% of the population of the CSA owned slaves, so I highly doubt that "they" were fighting for "slavery".

I think you need to read Road to Disunion by Freehling. The 1.6% statistic is nonsense, and a lot of non-slave owners were willing to fight for the possibility to own slaves someday.

The vast majority of Confederate troops were fighting to defend against invasion. Proof of that is documented by the fact that when Lee invaded Northern territory large numbers of Confederates left the ANV and returned to the colors when the army returned to the South. The average Confederate soldier's will to fight is best summed up by what one prisoner said to a Union officer who asked why he was fighting. He replied, "Because y'all are down here."

The way things are going with Political Correctness, now spreading world wide, it has reached the level of mass insanity. There are Confederates "in my attic" that were poor farmers in South East Missouri in the Bolivar and Brighton area. They did not own slaves, in fact one married a freed slave. In the extended family there were Union soldiers because my Grandmother used to tell me about Uncle John Proctor who had a Union pension. There were Confederates as well, one being "bushwhacked" fetching a bucket of water from a creek. History is "His-story". To deny, let alone erase, part of history is criminal to the point of mortal sin. The ACW in Missouri was civil war at its most savage. Truly brother against brother. Declaring one side Evil and deserving of obliteration from history is flirting with the same mindset of those that came up with the "Final Solution".

The catalyst for the US Civil War was the determination of slave owners (who through various means largely controlled the slave states) to spread slavery into the territories and get additional slave states admitted. Lincoln was opposed to the expansion of slavery and the slave states revolted due to this stance (Lincoln intended to remove slavery by slow strangulation but had no immediate plans to end it in the slave states). No one intended to do anything to the slave state's "rights" except prevent them from expanding. They went to war over this issue.

Anti-slavery and anti-facism are Western values. We celebrate these values and those who stood up for them not those who were duped or just went along or said its my duty…The German generals could have stood up to Hitler; the southern West Pointers could have refused to serve in a rebellious army. They didn't. We can understand some of their reasons and attempt to understand their cultural conditioning – the thought may not have entered their head – but we don't need to celebrate them for taking essentially the easy way out.

Barrack names will not cause nor hinder any soldier from doing his/her duty to their society.

TomT

+1 Thomas Thomas

Actually the slave owning population averaged 1/3 in the South depending on state. Mississippi was on the high end with 49% and Maryland at the low end of 12% of the white population owning slaves. So no it was not just 2% of the population.

1 out of every two Confederate recruits in 1861 also lived in a household that owned slaves. The others that did not probably worked for or rented land from a slave holder. Slavery was not something in the South that only a few whites did. It was throughout the entire system. No Southern white could say, "I had nothing to do with slavery", it was all around them. It was like a German saying I don't know what happens in that camp down the road.

Just for context's sake, In New Orleans, LA, USA, IIRC. The publically displayed statues of Jeff Davis, R.E. Lee, and IIRC Gen Beauregard are being removed. And will be placed in like a museum type setting, etc.

I don't really have an opinion, or want to say what in may be. The short answer is my people didn't get to the US until the very early 1900s. So we had/have no relations in the conflict(s).

BUT let me clearly state I'm am Totally Against slavery of any kind, in any way, shape or form. I was not born any where near the time frames in either Germany or the USA that is being discussed in this post. I.e. WWII or the ACW … I'm old … but not that old …

Both Germans and Confederates fought for a bad cause. Simple as that.
Individually I'm sure there were plenty of good guys on the mentioned sides but what it stood for was vile.

I have to agree … but be careful around TMP, you could be labeled as a number of negative things… Well you know what I mean …

Is there a building, complex, etc., in Germany named "von Stauffenberg" ?

IIRC at one point the (West)German AF had a Richthofen Squadron. Even though it was WWI vintage.