[schroeding]

You're right, and it's easily provable by looking at old literature. The word "Hakenkreuz" is ancient and was used in the 19th century[1], decades before the national-socialism.

I have a hard time understanding why so many people want them to be two different symbols. The symbol is not the problem, but the meaning it conveys, right? The context matters, see the difference between Germany and Finland - both used the Hakenkreuz, but they are not the same, as the context is different, isn't it?

Context is everything. The German Army still uses a version of the Iron Cross, but the context is different - using the same symbol on a flag from the German Empire has a vastly different meaning.

[1] For example: https://books.google.de/books?id=VbkNkkgHvYgC&pg=PA1&printse...

[Mo3]

> The symbol is not the problem, but the meaning it conveys, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you take a symbol, rip out its symbolic meaning, replace the symbolic meaning with a completely new symbolic meaning, in my opinion you end up with a new symbol that may share some visual aspects, but has nothing to do with the other symbol in terms of what a symbol actually is - conveying symbolic meaning. It's still going to be a new symbol with different context, and calling a Hakenkreuz (as used by the Nazi regime) a Swastika is more likely incorrect than correct.

Appropriation and following complete perversion of the original symbolic meaning does not make the resulting output interchangeable with the original symbol.

[schroeding]

I searched for the original text in Mein Kampf in German, he wrote:

"Ich selbst hatte unterdes nach unzähligen Versuchen eine endgültige Form niedergelegt; eine Fahne aus rotem Grundtuch mit einer weißen Scheibe und in deren Mitte ein schwarzes Hakenkreuz"

As established[1], the word Hakenkreuz was already used at that point to describe the swastika, including in the original religious meaning. So he wrote "a black swastika". Translating it as "hooked cross" is IMO like translating "kindergarten" to "child garden", technically correct, but weird.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but assigning new symbolic meaning to a symbol results in a new, unrelated symbol.

Does it? The German Bundeswehr still uses the Iron Cross. It's the same symbol, it has the same name, the same origin. But doesn't the meaning differ, whether you see it on a German tank now or on a tank of the Imperial Army in WW1 or the neck of a german officer in WW2?

I'm not sure whether or not there is a definition of symbol. If you define a symbol as a character or icon paired with a certain meaning, then you're right. But that would imply that e.g. the weird S[2] everyone draw at school was a different symbol every time. Would you agree with that?

[1] see my link to the old book, or just search on Google Books for "Hakenkreuz" in the 19th century [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_S

[Mo3]

> But that would imply that e.g. the weird S[2] everyone draw at school was a different symbol every time.

I'm not sure, this symbol is not known in Germany or at least has not been when I went to school there, but if the general context, meaning or reference of all of these S symbols is the same, and no matter the exact visual representation the intent behind it was the same, then yes. It's probably the same symbol, but again I'm not an expert on symbols.

> Does it? The German Bundeswehr still uses the Iron Cross. It's the same symbol, it has the same name, the same origin. But doesn't the meaning differ, whether you see it on a German tank now or on a tank of the Imperial Army in WW1 or the neck of a german officer in WW2?

Yes, the intent behind displaying the symbol is different. I believe it could be regarded as a new iteration of this symbol.

[schroeding]

Ok, fair enough, then we just have different definitons of symbols, and there apparently is no hard definition. :D

> I'm not sure, this symbol is not known in Germany or at least has not been when I went to school there

Interesting, it was when I went to school! Maybe it's not as universal as the internet thinks it is. But the meaning surely was different, in my class it was used by the class clown as a personal symbol of approval :D

[gommm]

I don't remember seeing it at school in Germany in the 90s either. Curious if it's something that came later.

[chimeracoder]

> I have a hard time understanding why so many people want them to be two different symbols.

Neo-Nazis have spent years spreading misinformation about this, because (ironically) conflating the two allows them to use Nazi imagery more openly and with a greater degree of plausible deniability[0]. Unfortunately, that means that the vast majority of people who don't know any better[1] end up falling for the propaganda, because it sounds believable.

[0] You'll see a low-effort verison of this on places like Twitter or other Internet forums, where people will write U+5350 in their display name or signature, and when called out on it, will immediately claim that "it's religious and you can tell by the direction it's pointing" (which is wrong). Of course, actual Neo-Nazis will openly use that exact character (U+5350) as a Nazi symbol with no concern for the direction or orientation - because, again, it's not about distinguishing the two; it's about creating plausible deniability through confusion.

[1] eg, people who are not Hindu (and therefore would be familiar with its religous use) or Neo-Nazis (and therefore would be familiar with its Nazi use)