Kusimulkku
Love me some pizza though
Yes, the iron ages. Maybe you didn’t just find it but
Suomessa hakaristejä on esiintynyt arkeologisten löytöjen perusteella viimeistään rautakaudelta alkaen.[4] Myöhemmin historiallisella ajalla hakaristiä tiedetään käytetyn muun muassa onnenmerkkinä esimerkiksi rakennuksissa, puuesineissä, vaatteiden kirjailuissa sekä puumerkkinä.[5] Hakaristi on myös ollut osa tursaansydän-taikamerkkiä, jonka on katsottu suojelevan pahalta. Hakarististä on käytetty myös nimitystä vääräpää, sananmukaisesti vinopäiseksi, erotuksena suoravartisesta rististä.[6] Puuesineissä sitä on käytetty esimerkiksi kauluslaudoissa. Suomen kansallismuseossa on Ilmajoelta vuodelta 1780 peräisin oleva kauluslauta, jossa on hakaristi, hannunvaakuna ja muita kuvioita.[7]
Machine translation:
Swastikas have been found in Finland since the Iron Age at the latest, according to archaeological finds.Later in the historical period, swastikas are known to have been used as lucky charms on buildings, wooden objects, embroidery on clothes and as a wooden marker, among other things.[5] Swastikas have also been part of the codfish heart charm, which was considered to protect against evil. The swastika has also been referred to as a wrong-headed cross, literally a crooked head, as opposed to a straight-headed cross.[6] In woodwork, it has been used on collar boards, for example. The National Museum of Finland has a collar board from Ilmajoki from 1780 with a swastika, a dandelion and other designs.[7]
I don’t think it was unavoidable, I hope it didn’t come off like that. Generally there are three schools of thought about this. Historically the “drift wood” theory has been the most prominent one. It argued that Finland was drift food flowing in the rapids of world events. It argues that Finland just “drifted to Germany’s side”. It has been popular because Finland had to come to grips with what happened during WW2. And that theory was the copout, basically. “We didn’t choose this, it just happened”. It was basically the “official truth” for the longest time and even though professional historians abandoned the theory I think since the 70’s, it has been the popular explanation among non-historians for the longest time, with it still being somewhat popular. Another theory (not very popular) was that Finland was the willing aggressor and had been seeking out Germany the whole time since independence and wanted to join Germany and jumped at the opportunity. This you can still see in more far-left circles and I think the idea is more popular abroad. It’s been brought up here too. Then there’s the theory that has since replaced driftwood theory, with a more nuanced and I think historically sound take. It argues that Finland wasn’t a driftwood but more a “whitewater boat” I guess. The rapids of world events did influence Finland majorly, but there was also conscientious effort from Finnish side to seek closer ties with Germany. And that’s the one I personally believe in. Finland didn’t helplessly and unavoidably drift into an alliance with the Nazis, but rather it was influenced by what was happening around Finland, experience of being left alone during Winter War and how close to total defeat Finland was and fears about the unsettled business with Soviet Union. I think seeing all those factors, it’s understandable from the POV of the leadership at the time (though not morally defensible) to see why Finland became Nazi Germany’s ally.
Sorry for the long post.
Not if they accepted the loss.
No I really meant that both sides knew that this wasn’t over. Both considered it unfinished (heh) business.
The same USSR that recognized Finnish independence in 1918?
The very same (or well, it had changed a bunch but still). Though the Soviet attempt to conquer Finland during Winter War, that had just happened, might’ve been a bit more prominent in peoples’ minds than 1918.