Complete News World

The location of "The" is still unknown |  Bruchhausen-Vilsen

The location of “The” is still unknown | Bruchhausen-Vilsen

The next event will be in the “Square”. The Council decided that the area in front of the building at 53 Bahnhofstrasse would initially remain unknown.

© Oliver Seidenberg

Br.-Vilsen – Church Square, the square in the city center, the square in front of the former Bullenkamp shop: the area between Bahnhofstrasse 53 and 55 plays a central role in the activities of the Finance Association. From their ranks came the desire to give the site a catchy name. But the “location” remains unknown. At first anyway.

Neither on the Youth and Social Affairs Committee on Tuesday evening nor in the Flekins Council on Wednesday evening, the Greens movement found a majority to name the square after the former Jewish residents of Lindenberg.

With nearly 20 listeners, a relatively large audience followed and engaged in both sessions in a debate that was more emotional than rarely on a local topic.

The commission broke with seemingly hard-line fronts, also because one viewpoint was left completely open, and the council could not work with it either. She said that for official reasons can be discussed on August 11 at the earliest. Although all the council participants admitted that dealing with each other on the committee the night before was a “really great folly,” said Bernd Garbers (SPD), the exchange of opinions on the council further hardened these fronts. The majority of the members of the local parliament remained with him: even noble requests had to be decided carefully.

Bernd Schneider on behalf of the applicant’s Green Party campaigned in both committees to place a “symbol of remembrance and appreciation” and to designate the place Lindenbergplatz as a representative of all former Jewish citizens, “after recognized and deserving citizens” who had been direct residents for at least 150 years. With contributions from the immigrant family themselves, the late home researcher Heinrich Bomhof, school project “Stolpersteine” and private family researcher Ulrike Meyer rated the sources as “impressive” on the panel. “The worshipers will assume their responsibilities in dealing decisively with their history,” he said in the assembly, to applause from the audience.

Among their ranks, Peter Schmidt-Bormann spoke from the History Workshop of the Transportation and Improvement Association (VVV) prior to the discussion in committee and in the council. Bruchhausen-Vilsen is “too late” to face its history. In Syke, there has been Stolpersteine ​​since 2006 and with Edgar-Deichmann-Platz is the belated confession of a Jew who was once at home in Hache. Hoya said on the committee that he remembers former Jewish citizens of Marion Blumenthal School. At the council, he appealed to neighboring municipalities to do the same.

“I never doubted that the matter had been postponed,” he stressed in the committee. But 14 months after proposing to put Lindenberg’s name at the center of memory, now is the time to act, he said. “We don’t want a collision course,” he said before the committee’s political debate. But it is at this level that the following discussion arose. A day later, Schmidt Bormann himself stated, “I am shocked and feel that this advice does not represent me, but rather ignores it.”

Schneider concluded that it was “not appropriate to put the matter on hold.” There was silence in the committee. “There are no requests to speak,” said President Nicole Reuter (the Greens), angrily. Claudia Steiger was the first to venture for the CDU: “We think it’s too early to name it.” The council had to come to terms with the story, but it hasn’t done enough yet. “Other families were at least as bad as the Lindenbergs,” she said of the fate of those who did not survive the Holocaust. Hermann Hamann, SPD member and local historian, argued in a similar manner when asked why the name Lindenberg was chosen. “The time is not ripe yet,” said Reinhard Toll of the SPD. It was important to collect and evaluate all the information before the committee could evaluate all the results. He fears: “If we name the place now, there will be no further processing.” He told the committee that the SPD wanted to use 2021 to deal with a memorial to all the victims of National Socialism.

“We unanimously named the scene a person previously (Bullenkamp. Editor’s note), which turned out to be unfortunate. Martina Claes (SPD) on the committee emphasized that the decision now must be broadly based. Nils Eilers (CDU) said on Tuesday” I hesitate, because we decided already too quickly once.” He had no problem with the name Lindenberg, “but the other groups in the village did not reach the same results,” he noted and said Bullenkamp’s role (as the one who bought the property from the Lindenbergs in need, Note the red d.) Still has to work on it.

An exchange of blows ensued in the commission as to whether one party or the other would make his decision easy for himself. Werner Pankala (CDU) tried his hand at the childhood memory of “Germans and Jews” in the committee, but ended his ideas after interventions from all parliamentary blocs, including his group, but in the middle. At the council, he left his parliamentary group yesterday and called it: “Let us be rational and call the place Lindenberglatz from now on.”

On the panel, President Nicole Reuter acknowledged several expressions of displeasure at the hour of other residents’ questions. Erika Müller-Kracke issued a “weak testimony” on the panel. She testified before the council that she was sending the wrong signal at the wrong time. Peter Schmidt-Bormann felt that the commission saw itself as a “slap in the face” as a review body for a de facto situation accumulated over decades. He said in the council: “There are no shortcomings in researching Jewish history in the region.”

Not all contributions to the committee came from residents, nor were they phrased as questions. The president dismissed repeated comments on Martina Claes’ rules of procedure, “I’m afraid we have to put up with these statements.” In a joint statement, the SPD and CDU rejected Reuters’ method of chairing the meeting.

The committee rejected the Green Party’s proposal by six votes out of nine, with one abstention. The council voted against it by 14 out of 23 votes.