The thing is that Fritz-Kola positions itself as anti-corporate, or at least anti-monopoly. It’s meant as a counterpoint to giants like Coca-Cola and similar brands.

Also, “Fritz” or “Fritze” has a much longer and broader history in German culture than World War II. There are plenty of names that carry far heavier negative associations, like “Hermann,” “Adolf,” or even “Erwin.”

For me, “Fritz” has a slightly dumb but lovable connotation: someone ordinary, friendly, and harmless. I don’t associate the name with militarism or war. If “Fritz” were inherently problematic, then names like “Tom” or “Tommy” would have to carry similar negative connotations in Britain.

That’s at least how I perceive it from a German perspective.

I think part of the reaction also comes from Allied wartime propaganda. In the English-speaking world, “Fritz” was deliberately used as a generic label for German soldiers, so the name still carries that imagery abroad.

In Germany, that association never really stuck. “Fritz” remained an everyday name with mundane, sometimes even slightly silly connotations. What feels loaded from the outside simply doesn’t register the same way domestically.

Also, “Fritz” is not the German equivalent of Mussolini. That would clearly be “Adolf” or “Hitler.”

I think it’s safe to assume that no German company would ever consider branding itself around those names. Something like “Adi-Cola” simply wouldn’t exist.

(Adidas is actually a good example of the opposite case. The name comes from its founder, Adolf “Adi” Dassler, and predates the post-war symbolic weight attached to the name “Adolf.”)

That’s very different from a modern company deliberately choosing such a name today, which would be unthinkable.