sueddeutsche.de
Critique of Neitzel's Book on Bundeswehr Tradition Highlights Problematic Handling of Nazi Past
Neitzel's book on the Bundeswehr's tradition is criticized for its inaccuracies and omissions concerning individuals with Nazi pasts who served in the Bundeswehr, the delayed removal of problematic names from barracks, and the absence of positive historical counter-narratives.
- What specific inaccuracies and omissions in Neitzel's book reveal a problematic handling of the Bundeswehr's historical connections to the Nazi regime?
- The book by Neitzel on the Bundeswehr's tradition receives mixed reviews. While it details "out of area" operations, its perspective on historical policy and tradition is criticized for being shortsighted and inaccurate, particularly its claim that the Bundeswehr was created "from nothing.
- How does the delayed response to concerns surrounding the names of barracks and associated individuals illustrate the complex process of reconciling historical injustices within the German military?
- Neitzel's narrative is challenged by its omission of crucial details about individuals with Nazi pasts who served in the Bundeswehr, like Admiral Johannesson. The book downplays the significance of the Personalgutachterausschuss (PGA), which aimed to exclude individuals with Nazi pasts from leadership positions. The delayed removal of names associated with war crimes, like Krafft von Dellmensingen, highlights the slow pace of addressing past injustices within the Bundeswehr.
- What alternative narratives or perspectives are missing from Neitzel's account that would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the Bundeswehr's relationship to its past, including both negative and positive aspects?
- The controversy surrounding the naming of Bundeswehr barracks reveals a deeper issue of how Germany confronts its military past. The delayed action on removing names associated with Nazi atrocities suggests that even with increased awareness of these issues, the integration of critical historical perspectives into military tradition remains a challenge. The lack of discussion of positive examples of resistance during the Nazi era further demonstrates this shortcoming.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the Bundeswehr's tradition debate negatively, emphasizing instances of problematic names and associations with Nazi-era figures. The selection and sequencing of examples—highlighting omissions and delayed responses—contribute to a critical and largely negative interpretation. The lack of inclusion of positive examples further reinforces this framing.
Language Bias
While the text uses descriptive language to illustrate the problematic historical figures and their actions, it largely avoids inflammatory or overtly biased terminology. However, the repeated emphasis on omissions and delayed responses subtly shapes the reader's perception, creating a negative tone despite the relatively neutral descriptive language.
Bias by Omission
The analysis reveals significant bias by omission. Neitzel's book overlooks crucial figures like Admiral Rolf Johannesson, who confirmed death sentences during the final days of Nazi Germany, and several others involved in Nazi-era atrocities who later served in the Bundeswehr. The omission of these figures, coupled with the absence of discussion regarding the use of poison gas by Georg Bruchmüller and the long-delayed removal of Krafft von Dellmensingen's name due to his antisemitic views (the book on Dellmensingen was published in 2002, yet the name remained until 2011), significantly distorts the narrative and presents an incomplete picture of the Bundeswehr's historical connections to the Wehrmacht. Additionally, the book fails to mention positive examples of naming traditions, such as those honoring resistance fighters. This omission creates a skewed perspective that underrepresents the efforts made to reconcile with the past and promotes a more negative impression than is wholly accurate.
False Dichotomy
The text doesn't explicitly present a false dichotomy, but the focus on negative aspects of the Bundeswehr's history, while omitting positive examples, implicitly creates a skewed view. It frames the debate as primarily about problematic names and associations, neglecting to acknowledge the efforts made toward a more inclusive and democratic military tradition.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the controversy surrounding the names of German army barracks and their connections to figures from the Nazi era. Addressing this issue is crucial for promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions by acknowledging past wrongdoings and preventing the glorification of figures associated with war crimes and atrocities. Removing names linked to Nazi figures reflects a commitment to fostering a culture of accountability and preventing the resurgence of such ideologies.