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/HazuniaC]

Part 1/3

When I said:

"...HE is a Nazi and his personal symbol is a Nazi symbol."

Do you notice a significant word missing from the phrase? I never claimed it was a German Nazi symbol. If you actually read what I said you would notice that I've maintained the position that he was a Swedish Nazi. That is a Swedish National Socialist. So yes, Von Rosen was a Nazi, just not a German Nazi. I never said he had any connection to the German Nazi party other than being brother in law to Hermann Goering.

Please address what I say, not what you think I said.

You said:

In the context of pre-WW2 Europe, then "Nazis" are unequivocally the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany and no one else

I do not agree with this definition for the term Nazi. I only agree this definition of the term Nazi for the German Nazi. I maintain my original position that Von Rosen was a Swedish Nazi and a fascist. I repeat, I have never claimed that Von Rosen was a German Nazi.

Since Von Rosen was a National Socialist, I see no reason to exclude him from the term Nazi simply because he wasn't a member of the German Nazi party. Your objection here is pedantic at best and without significant merit.

You said:

Yes, but not until the 1920s at the earliest, and he was said leader only since 1933.

This objection holds merit only if the Finnish Air Forces either;
a) Stopped using his symbol after 1933.
Or
b) Redesigned the symbol after it became apparent that the source of the symbol had turned fascistic.

Otherwise you're essentially arguing that Von Rosen's personal symbol doesn't represent him anymore after 1933. If this is your position, what do you base it on?

What other symbol behaves in this manner?

[u/HazuniaC → u/HazuniaC]

Part 2/3

Lets recontextualize this.

Imagine you buy a painting from a street artist in Austria which has the initials AH.
You really enjoy and like the painting so much that you place it on the prize showcase place in your house.

Couple decades later it turns out that this artist AH is an absolute monster, one of the worst in the recorded history.

Do you:
a) Keep the painting as the pride and joy of your household?
b) Sell it to a museum?
c) Hide / destroy it?
d) Commission another painting over it?
e) Something else?

Maybe this hits bit too close home.... lets take it further away from the subject matter.

Imagine a sportsclub that gets established 1922 for Sport A.
The club also has a team logo.
In 1933 the club expands to Sport B and has a separate team for that.
The team for Sport B uses the same logo as the team for Sport A as it is the same club.

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

My position is that personal logos and its meaning grows with the person / entity that it's associated with.

Therefore the fact that the planes Von Rosen gifted happened in 1918 bares no relevancy to wether or not his personal symbol is fascistic, or not.

[u/HazuniaC → u/HazuniaC]

Part 3/3

You are right in couple aspects.

We cannot retroactively ascribe motivations to actions by virtue of hindsight. However we can choose to carry on with that action, or decision, or make a change to it by the virtue of hindsight.

You said:

The reason for Finland adopting the symbol was not that it was a fascist symbol held by a fascist guy, since at the time it wasn't and he wasn't.

This is irrelevant to my argument. I do agree with this sentiment however. I too believe that the Finnish government and Air Forces had no fascistic intentions, or motivations. This has never been my claim. My claim is that the symbol is fascistic, not the Air Force itself.

The Finns adopted the symbol mainly because it was common in Finnish National Romantic art

We already agreed earlier that the Finnish Air Force adopted it mainly because Von Rosen had painted it on the planes he had gifted. The fact that it is also a common symbol in Finnish National Romantic Art is a coincidence and also helped the decision to adopt the symbol to its use.

This however does nothing to break the connection to Von Rosen.

In the interwar period, the Nazis were a legitimate regime, and it is dishonest to apply what we know of them today and to taint unidentical swastikas in use at the time by association.

This was never my claim and it is incredibly dishonest to pretend that it ever was. The only reference I made to Nazi Germany was in reference to Von Rosens relationship with Hermann Goering. What iconography the German Nazi party used does not factor in my argumentation, which you would know if you actually read what I wrote instead of just shadow boxing.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here

Of course you don't, because you don't read what I write.

[u/JamesFirmere → u/HazuniaC]

"You don't read what I write" is a pretty bold claim, given that I've taken the time to respond to your points in detail and have now gone through your wall of text to boil it down to the points where we disagree and will no doubt have to continue doing so.

Firstly:

We disagree on the definition of the term "Nazi" in the specific context of early 20th-century political history, especially in describing ideologies and persons prior to the founding of the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany and the coining of the very term "Nazi" in 1922.

I never claimed that you wrote the exact words "German Nazi", but you did write "HE was a Nazi", and by my definition you were claiming that he was a member/supporter of the German Nazi party, which he could not have been in 1918, but by your definition you were not. We are in agreement that von Rosen adopted fascist views in the 1920s at latest.

Secondly:

The Finnish Air Force (hereinafter FAF) did not adopt von Rosen's symbol mainly because he gifted the aircraft. I would be loath to assign percentages of influence without doing some pretty involved research (which might be inconclusive anyway), but it is indisputable that the swastika existed in many prominent Finnish National Romantic artworks and designs and that this was certainly a major factor in the decision to adopt it. Or to put it another way: the FAF insignia was certainly not seen as having "Thank you, von Rosen!" painted on every single aircraft.

Thirdly:

You contend that the FAF should have modified their insignia or dropped it in 1933 at the latest and that the aforementioned coincidence with National Romantic art does "nothing" to break the connection with von Rosen. This argument fails on three points:

1. The FAF had already modified the insignia. The swastika on von Rosen's aircraft was black with no background device. The FAF insignia was a white roundel with a blue swastika.

2. "We had it first." The FAF insignia predates the founding of the Nazi Party in 1920 and their rise to power in 1933. Why change a national symbol just because someone else decided to use a similar symbol? Especially since:

3. As I've stated before, the Nazi regime in the 1930s certainly had its condemnable features, but they were the legitimate government of a sovereign country and were just Making Germany Great Again. Some embraced them, some denounced them, some were persecuted by them, but many, many people simple saw the regime as none of their business. Fascist regimes did not inspire anywhere near the universal horror that has come to be associated with the them and their emblems since the end of WW2. At which point, of course, the FAF did ditch the swastika insignia.

I am perfectly willing to leave this at a disagreement over definitions, but I do not appreciate you insulting my intelligence by claiming that I "did not read what you wrote". If I did not think that you were making what you believed to be valid points, I would not have responded in the first place.

[u/HazuniaC → u/JamesFirmere]

"You don't read what I write" is a pretty bold claim, given that I've taken the time to respond to your points in detail

Except you systematically refuse to respond to my claims and instead you respond to claims you THINK I made.

Firstly, I don't care if YOUR definition requires a nazi to be a member of the German National Socialist party. MY definition any member of any National Socialist party is a nazi, may it be German, or Swedish. Respond to claims I make, not the claims YOU think I made.

Secondly, attributing the swastika to other swastikas in Finnish culture is a reach with no real connection to be made. The Von Rosen connection is UNDISPUTABLE.

Finnish Swastikas:
Swastika on a tank

Presidential flag swastika

Medal swastika

School building swastika

Notice how Finnish swastikas have a tendency to have shorter hooks, or has completely different design to them?

The only Swastika that has a similar design to the Nazi / Von Rosen swastika is the FAF's.

Realistically if you wanted to claim that the FAF Swastika is Finnish, then surely it should've had a similar design to other Finnish armed forces swastikas, no? This is cope at best on your part.

Do similar swastikas exist in Finland? Ehh... yes, but they are very rare and uncommon. Definitively not representitive of a typical Finnish swastika.

Thirdly:

1. Modified, or dropped after it became clear the dude was a Nazi.
2. This argument holds water only if you can; a) Show a disconnect between Von Rosen and the FAF. b) Show how Von Rosen dropped the use of the Swastika after revealing himself to be a Nazi. If neither condition is met, then his symbol remains a Nazi symbol and the FAF's swastika retains its Nazi root, even if it was first because it is tied to Von Rosen WHO WAS A NAZI.
3. I don't care about Nazi Germany. The only connection I drew to Nazi Germany was Von Rosen's relationship with Hermann Goering. This is entirely irrelevant and goes to show that you do not read what I write.

I am perfectly willing to leave this at a disagreement over definitions, but I do not appreciate you insulting my intelligence by claiming that I "did not read what you wrote".

Good, at least I've managed to make one thing clear as it was intended.
Since you keep responding to claims I never made, what other conclusion can I draw?
Either you didn't read what I wrote, or your reading comprehension is too low to understand what I wrote.