You can claim high and low that it's not associated with Nazism but that doesn't matter for the observer that already made up their mind, and it will always be a bad look fighting alongside the...
You can claim high and low that it's not associated with Nazism but that doesn't matter for the observer that already made up their mind, and it will always be a bad look fighting alongside the symbol of the large scale human misery that took place under it.
I think they're in the right to change it, not because they're bad for having it, but because it will be used against them in bad faith.
As a Finn (and an air forces reservist) my opinion is that it should've been changed roughly 80 years ago. I guess we needed NATO to get there. This is a bit of a conspiracy theory, but I think...
As a Finn (and an air forces reservist) my opinion is that it should've been changed roughly 80 years ago. I guess we needed NATO to get there.
This is a bit of a conspiracy theory, but I think there might have been some bad consequences also to Finland not totally losing WW2. Actual nazi sympathism lingered in the military, I believe. The good consequences greatly outweigh the bad though, since Soviet Union would have been the occupier.
That seems like a fair assessment. And as AP seems to mention, Finland might've not used it in a Nazi-ish way, since it adopted it from a major early supporter - the swedish Count von Rosen....
That seems like a fair assessment.
And as AP seems to mention, Finland might've not used it in a Nazi-ish way, since it adopted it from a major early supporter - the swedish Count von Rosen. Except that he then was the brother-in-law of a Goering fellow.
Certainly not blame, but maybe as you say, sympathism...
You can claim high and low that it's not associated with Nazism but that doesn't matter for the observer that already made up their mind, and it will always be a bad look fighting alongside the symbol of the large scale human misery that took place under it.
I think they're in the right to change it, not because they're bad for having it, but because it will be used against them in bad faith.
As a Finn (and an air forces reservist) my opinion is that it should've been changed roughly 80 years ago. I guess we needed NATO to get there.
This is a bit of a conspiracy theory, but I think there might have been some bad consequences also to Finland not totally losing WW2. Actual nazi sympathism lingered in the military, I believe. The good consequences greatly outweigh the bad though, since Soviet Union would have been the occupier.
That seems like a fair assessment.
And as AP seems to mention, Finland might've not used it in a Nazi-ish way, since it adopted it from a major early supporter - the swedish Count von Rosen. Except that he then was the brother-in-law of a Goering fellow.
Certainly not blame, but maybe as you say, sympathism...