Europe

I don’t think this is too alarmist.

I don't think it is very objective, either. The article cites an interview in Spiegel in 2017 which can also be found online.

Your article:

Neitzel insists that the Bundeswehr must stand in the tradition of the Wehrmacht because it must be an “instrument of battle.” He declares that “tank grenadiers and paratroopers” can “hardly be offered non-combative role models.”

Actual Spiegel article [deepl translation]:

But the Bundeswehr is also an instrument of combat. Just talk to tank grenadiers or paratroopers. They're not running around with foam balls, they're supposed to be able to fight and kill, because that's what the Federal Republic of Germany demands of them. In return, I have to accept that these people, all volunteers, have a certain ethos. They don't say: It's terrible that I'm a sniper. They want to master their profession - just like you want to be good journalists and I want to be a proper historian. I can't offer these people nothing but non-combatant role models.

Neither does he say the Bundeswehr must stand in the tradition of the Wehrmacht nor does he say that "tank grenadiers and paratroopers" can hardly be offered non-combative role models but that they cannot be only offered non-combative role models.

Your article:

One can also “act in an exemplary manner in a total war for a criminal regime… for example, in providing leadership or as a successful soldier like [Helmut] Lent.”

Lent, whom Neitzel praises, was a leader of the 3rd night fighter squadron who was styled a war hero by Nazi propaganda. In his funeral oration, Hermann Göring described him as a “supporter of our National Socialist [Nazi] world outlook.”

Acrual Spiegel article [deepl translation]

Lent scored 110 kills, he was one of the most successful German night fighters and was celebrated accordingly by the propaganda. But as far as we know, he was not a Nazi. Now you can say that this man fought for a system whose character we can all agree on. Or you can look at how he led his squadron, how he flew himself, and come to the conclusion that he was a role model as an aviator and troop leader. I would ask the soldiers in the Lent barracks.

We just shouldn't try to smooth over people's life stories. As role models, people are always edgy. And if the tradition of the Bundeswehr is not to begin in 1986 - when the first inspector general with no experience of the Second World War took office - we have to accept the brokenness in people's CVs. It is also possible to act in an exemplary manner for a criminal regime during a total war - in the sense of resistance like Tresckow, but also as a military man, for example in leadership or as a successful soldier like Lent.

While your article wants to make it seem that Neitzel is praising a Nazi war hero for this, in the actual article Neitzel explains his views on Lent which are a bit more complicated than told in your article.

Also, they conveniently left out the parts where Neitzel explains that the "exemplary manner" in which a person can act even in a total war for a criminal regime (which he does not apologise or trivialise, btw) can be not only as a successful soldier but also in resistance or in leadership.

Your article:

For Neitzel, not only Nazi propaganda heroes are to be revered for their military achievements, but Hitler’s Wehrmacht as a whole. “The initiative to want to win, to thrust forward, loyalty to duty—are all military qualities that remain valid,” he declares.

Actual Spiegel article [deepl translation]:

In terms of practical skills, there is a great deal of agreement with what the Bundeswehr also demands of its combat troops: the initiative to want to win, forward momentum, loyalty to duty - these are all military qualities that are still valid. This whole box of traditions is - I exaggerate - only a problem for the combat troops anyway. Especially in units such as the armored forces or the paratroopers, which were formed in the 1930s. When they practise combat, they always end up using the tactics of the Wehrmacht.

He absolutely doesn't say that Hitler's Wehrmacht as a whole should be revered but that at the core, in both Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr (or any other military), the core demands on soldiers are always the same: a desire to win, to proceed and to be loyal. Futhermore, units that were first developed in the 30's inevitably also use tactics of one of the biggest armies at that time and extensively developing these units, the Wehrmacht. Is that really surprising?

I encourage you to read the original article, as yours seems to be quite biased and I think its always best to aim for an objective and original source where possible.

In the previous article, this is what I based my suspicions on:

Musste die junge Bundesrepublik etwa noch auf die alten Wehrmachtseliten zurückgreifen, um eine Armee im Dienst der Freiheit aufzubauen, wolle man nach der Jahrtausendwende von dieser Kontinuität meist nichts mehr wissen, sagt Neitzel. Ein Ausdruck dessen sei etwa der Traditionserlass der Bundeswehr von 2018.

Yes, but the paragraph doesn't start there. The sentence before that is vital for the meaning, hence we shouldn't omit it:

Gleichzeitig ist die Frage, ob und wie eine Armee wie die Bundeswehr in die Demokratie passt, mit zunehmendem Abstand zu den Weltkriegen und den deutschen Diktaturen drängender geworden.

His point: while in the early years, a continutiy to the Wehrmacht was almost inevitable, this continutiy now almost faded to non-existence as time passed on and we don't want this continuity anymore. However, we haven't tackled the question yet of, as he says it, how an army such as the Bundeswehr fits into our democracy. He criticises the lack of an honest military culture in Germany that also accepts that there are soldiers that literally train to kill succesfully and prepare to give their lives for this country and the resulting dishonest desire to make the Bundeswehr exist in a sterile vacuum with no historical lineage and as little connection to the rest of the society as possible.