Okay, substitute the word "uncomfortable" for "upset" in may statement. Does the meaning change?
The fact is, both the individual in question and the public in general don't notice the color or angle of the swastika. Your clarification of those differences only bypasses the real problem.
The problem is not the historical significance of the Finnish symbol versus the Nazi version. The problem is the logic of people who are "uncomfortable" with the swastika but not "uncomfortable" with the Bf109, since both are symbols of the Nazis regardless of anyone else who used either one.
The black swastika, at the correct angle, became the official symbol of the Nazi power.
But, likewise, the Bf109 and Ju87 were products of the Nazi war machine and quickly became symbols of Nazi power in their own right during the Blitzkriegs as much as the swastika and "SS".
A 109 in any colors is still a 109. The Nazis funded, developed, produced, and sold the 109s. If you can't understand that a 109 in any color scheme is still a "Nazi" plane, then you won't ever understand what I have been trying to say.
If people don't mind flying Nazi planes in the first place, why are they so "uncomfortable" with the swastika? Both are well known icons of Hitler's Germany, why is one considered so evil it should never be displayed while the other doesn't even merit a 2nd thought. To me it is a major contradiction in logic. I don't mind 109s or swastikas. If one really bothered me, the other would as well.
I don't see how you can argue Bf109s in Finnish service were not Nazi planes. Just because Finland owned and operated them does not change their origin. Switzerland did the same. After the war, Israel flew them as well with the big blue Star of David. I would still call any 109 ever made or flown a Nazi plane. Who designed it? Who built it? Who used it more than anyone else? If a church is in desperate need of financial aid, and gets a donation from a druglord, is it not still called drug money since that is where it came from?
F-4 Phantoms were built in Japan, but I would still call them an American plane, Yankee plane, or any other term that is synonomous with the political machine that ultimately produced 5,000 of them. McDonnell Douglas and Mitsubishi were the factories, but the development, production, sales, and distribution were controlled by the U.S. government. The same held true with the 109.
With regard to Finland and the war, countries in desperate need of help always resort to anything it takes to get the help they need, but that doesn't make it right. In the world of law, the ends do not justify the means. A crime is still a crime even if it was committed with the best of intentions.
If I am a poor farmer in Colombia struggling to feed my family, I will do anything I can to provide for them. Perhaps the only choice I have is to support the local drug lords by harvesting crops for them (or whatever else it is that I can do for them and feed my family). But the drug lords are still criminals. Anyone who helps them becomes criminals.
Because somebody ends up in a position where they have no better choice does not make the course of action they take correct or legal.
My country operates based on self-interest and as such breaks the laws and is frequently immoral or supports those who are. I don't approve of it, but I don't deny it either.
In a war where it was the USSR, UK, US vs GE, IT, JP, Finland fought against the USSR and was supplied primarily by GE. Regardless of the Finland's motives, that is a fact.
Obviously, receiving supplies from Nazi Germany to defend against the USSR wasn't considered to be such a bad thing by the US and Britain, or the Allies as a whole would have treated Finland as an enemy and invaded/occupied it. But you will never convince me it was the "right" thing to do. Of course with Germany gone, it was in the interest of the West to prevent Russia from expanding any more than necessary. It makes perfect sense that the German planes would be replaced by aircraft from Western countries.
Did the US and UK really care about the fate of Finland? No, they only cared about how Finland affected the USSR. During WWII, they looked the other way. After the war, they preferred opposing Soviet expansion in any way shape or form.
Yet somewhere along the way, Finland ended up being more closely allied with the Soviet Union than NATO. Strange results indeed.
