Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
Phylo,phylo_roadking wrote:Hardly..."news"...what year was the Bundeswehr formed???
Well, the way I see it, they are emulating the men of the DAK who fought in harsh terrain, not the regime they fought for. The DAK fought well, there's nothing wrong with emulating them.Waleed Y. Majeed wrote:The palms on the vehicles posted here are specific "logos" only used once before in history... during the NAZI period of German history and ONLY used by the Afrika Korps.
This is what makes it controversial. Incorporating the EK into the
palms instead of the swastika does not make it less controversial.
I understand your point, and trust me I'm not criticizing you. But if the NAVY can name ships after men who fought bravely, why is it wrong for a group of ARMY men to do something similar? They're not advocating a return to those days, they're just mimicking a group of guys who fought in similarly lousy conditions. Had the used the Hakenkreuz, then I could see the issue. What if they used the Totenkopf of the Prussian Hussars? They aren't using any Partei emblems, merely the emblem of a group of soldiers.Waleed Y. Majeed wrote:Insignificant for some, controversial for others. By emulating one, one must also take into consideration
the nazi expansion, occupation and aggression in North Africa, no matter if the men fought under harsh conditions or were led by Rommel or not. Bottom line they fought for a Nazi regime and not least adopted their own symbol or "logo" for this specific campaign. Adapting a similar symbol today is wrong in the eyes of the modern German army.
Naming the ships after persons - Right or wrong, I can't say.
Rommel, well for his fame or more likely his ending. Most would probably approve of the use here.
Question again was the symbol his or one of the regime.