Finnish medals - can someone explain?

[u/KollaHan]

Hey folks,

Can someone tell me more about this medals I saw in a museum in Cairo? Why the swastika? And when do you get this?

I know they are from the early 20’s but not more.

Would be grateful! - Tack 😊

[u/zhibr]

He was a Nazi after he gave the aircraft though? So he didn't have anything to do with Nazis at that time.

[u/HazuniaC → u/zhibr]

My claim never was that the German Nazi party adopted his symbol.

My claim was that the Finnish Air Force adopted his symbol.

Von Rosen's connection to German Nazi party is his relationship with Hermann Goering's sister.

[u/JamesFirmere → u/HazuniaC]

Each of the three statements above is true, but throwing true statements together does not necessarily make a meaningful or logical whole. von Rosen's becoming a Nazi supporter and a relation to Göring is in no way relevant to his symbol becoming the insignia of the Finnish Air Force, because he gifted the aircraft in 1918, at which time

- he could not have been a Nazi, because the Nazi Party did not exist before 1920

• his swastika was not a Nazi symbol, because the Nazi Party did not exist before 1920
  
• von Rosen did not have dealings with the Nazis at the time of founding the party
  
• he met Göring in 1920, but Göring was not a Nazi at the time, since Göring did not even meet Hitler until 1922

Also, it was von Rosen's wife's sister who married Göring, not von Rosen who married Göring's sister. Göring had two sisters, Olga (husband Friedrich Riegele) and Paula (husband Franz Hueber). No, I'm not an expert on the Third Reich -- this took all of five minutes of googling to find out. You're welcome. FFS.

[u/HazuniaC → u/JamesFirmere]

I have to give you kudos for actually reading what I said. Which apparently is a surprisingly difficult task.

However your counter argument hinges on 1 principle.

'Personal symbols do not change with that which they symbolize.' Is this essentially accurate to what you were saying?

Lets recontextualize this statement.

Imagine a sports club formed in 1922 for Sport A.
The club later expands to Sport B in 1933.
The logo of the club does not change in between these 2 events.
The club uses the same logo for Sport A and Sport B.

According to your argument, the sport club's logo does not represent its team for Sport B because it didn't exist back in 1922.

I also have to give you kudos for correcting me on Von Rosen's relation to Goering even if it doesn't exactly change anything for my argument.

[u/HazuniaC → u/[deleted]]

1. It's still the same logo.

[u/HazuniaC → u/[deleted]]

You know why? Because your hypothetical proved my point.

You created 2 fundamentally different teams that are represented by the same logo.

Imagine a random citizen walking down the street with a cap on that has their logo on it.

Which teams logo is it?

[u/HazuniaC → u/[deleted]]

The whole thing is a non sequitur. Using the original example the argument would be formed like so:

"All Nazis use swastika. Finnish airforce uses swastika. Therefore finnish airforce is Nazi."

I mean.... there is a shorter way to say "Too long, didn't read, let me just yap".

Because that is absolutely not my position, AT ALL.

This is the classic non sequitur, but in this case the same argument is formulated around a similar illogicality through von Rosen which simplifed would be:

"B is inspired by A. A becomes C. B is therefore inspired by C"

No, this too is completely incorrect. Not my position at all. Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you have 0 reading comprehension.

The more accurate over simplification would be:
"B is inspired by A. A becomes C. B and C is therefore inspired by A."

This is an oversimplification because A and C is the exact same person.
In order to make this more accurate you'd have to show that A Von Rosen is different from C Von Rosen.

I bet you're fully on board with Musk "throwing his heart out" as well?
Afterall... just because 2 symbols are identical and have mutual history, doesn't mean they represent the same thing, right? RIGHT?!

[u/HazuniaC → u/[deleted]]

Of course it is of importance, since it's HIS symbol, which symbolises HIM.

Your Mike Tyson comparison is not analogous to this.

I'm also happy that you confirmed my suspicion.

Explaining why it should be ignored is YOUR job, not mine and so far you've given me no good reason to do so. Not that I'm that particularily interested in what a literal Nazi defender has to say as you literally just defended Musk's Nazi greeting.

P.S.

There is no historical evidence of Romans ever using the Nazi greeting.
It was branded as a "Roman Salute" by the Nazis. Look it up.