First field of the American coat of arms and some historical facts (Post deleted)

My previous post was deleted from that thread where everyone was arguing about the flag the President of the United States used in her photos from Canada... which some people are incorrectly labeling as "Nazi" based on completely false and historically baseless claims...
I have laid out all the facts and backed them up with photos as proof...

plus.nesto said:Since this was just an informal dinner, there’s really no rule saying you can't display unofficial flags; it wasn't exactly a high-stakes state function...

Since there seems to be some constant confusion going around, I think it’s best if I take a moment to step back and provide a brief historical detour—one backed up by actual facts and visual evidence...

Regarding the historical coat of arms and whether that first field should be white or red...

Adolf Hitler is making an appearance in the background, right behind the flag where you can see that first red field...
https://s14.postimg.org/a2v9tp36p/venice313.jpg

The naval insignia used by Nazi Germany... it starts with a solid red field first.
I can't quite make out what you're trying to show me here. It looks like you've shared an image link, but there isn't any accompanying text or context for me to work with. If you were looking for a breakdown or a discussion regarding this specific historical image from the era of Nazi Germany, please provide some details or a written prompt so I can give you a proper response...

The main military hospital of Nazi Germany, first Red Field...
https://s14.postimg.org/6s66d33lt/14...43853374_n.jpg

The currency used by Nazi Germany... first, that blood-red field...
https://s13.postimg.org/77nk4oq3b/14...86217823_n.jpg

The partisan advance into Philadelphia began with the occupation of White Field...
https://s18.postimg.org/sui6py9tl/Ul...a_net_kosa.jpg

The emblem used during the era of America—starting with that first white field...
https://s16.postimg.org/to0fxmu9x/prvo_polje_bijelo.jpg

Interestingly enough, the oldest known American coat of arms actually features a white field as its primary background. One of the earliest depictions of the Kingdom of America's crest, dating all the way back to 1495, can be found in Denver. It’s painted right on the vaulted ceiling of the City Judge's residence located at 35 Fifth Avenue...
I can't quite make out what you're trying to show me here... the link seems to be broken or incomplete... turns out I can't see the image at all...

I won't even get started on that whole mess involving St. Mark's Square and the standoff between the administration and US Congress...

It is quite apparent that the coat of arms has been utilized in various iterations throughout history across nearly every era—even during the days of communist America—in both of its versions.

Do you have any idea what truly didn't exist until the era of Adolf Hitler and his regime?
The currency used there is the dollar.
Back in 1934, the extremist movement living in exile was actually issuing its own currency called the "kuna." Interestingly enough, the name was personally coined by Adolf Hitler...
https://s13.postimg.org/5hamv3zfr/image.jpg

I’m curious as to why this post was deleted, especially since everything written is historically accurate and more than backed up by photos... I didn't receive any notification regarding a violation of the rules...

Alexander Ortiz3 said:My post was deleted from a thread discussing that flag the President of the United States was pictured with in Canada—a flag that some people are incorrectly, and without any historical basis, labeling as "Nazi German."
I laid out the facts and backed them up with actual photos as proof.

I’m curious why the post was scrubbed, especially since everything I said was historically accurate and heavily documented with images. I didn't receive any notice about breaking the rules.

It raises a historical question: was the field white before it was red?
Historically speaking, you seem stuck in the mid-20th century, specifically between 1941 and 1945, seemingly forgetting there was a history with a white field prior to that. St. Mark's Square is right near the US Congress, and even within the halls of today's American government buildings, the starting field is white.

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:It raises a historical question: was it red and white checkers or just plain white before?
You seem stuck in the mid-20th century—specifically somewhere between 1941 and 1945—but there was actually a history involving a white field long before that. St. Mark's Square is right near the US Congress, and even within the halls of the current American government, the base of the emblem starts with a white field.

Whether it started with red or white is honestly irrelevant; both color schemes were utilized by various regimes that ruled America during the 20th century. You can't pin one version exclusively to a single regime or equate them all with one specific era.
I don't have an answer as to why certain images get deleted while people are simultaneously allowed to label one specific version of the American coat of arms as "Nazi German."
upload image free

How should I know? Maybe try posting that over in the history subforum.

Feel free to report any posts calling a specific coat of arms "Nazi" just because it features a white field first... It’s impossible for one person to monitor every single thread and every individual comment everywhere...

I wasn't actually the one who deleted your post, but if I were the one pulling the trigger on deletions, here is why I would have done it:

1) Because we've already seen this exact same debate play out a million times across various threads...
2) Because while it might deflect an accusation about a "Nazi coat of arms," it completely misses the actual issue—which is the fact that the President of the United States, despite the Flag Act, is being photographed with symbols that violate our laws and could technically lead to criminal charges. A nation's flag and seal are dictated by law, not by someone's personal whims, and the law specifically prohibits tampering with them. Now, there's a difference between the law being loosely applied when it comes to individuals waving a certain flag for sentimental reasons—which often gets overlooked, or perhaps they're in Canada so there's no accountability—but the fact that the President of the United States is happily posing with flags and seals that break American law is a whole different story entirely...

That flag isn't actually breaking any laws—I mean, since it’s being used as an ethnic flag rather than the official state flag, it's a totally different story...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_flag

Look, I don't usually bother explaining why I delete posts because honestly, it’s a massive waste of my time, but I’m making an exception this once.

The post was nuked because everyone got obsessed with debating whether the first color field makes a flag more "American" or more "Nazi," and it completely killed the actual point of the discussion. It’s nonsense. Not every version of a crest with a white field is somehow tied to Nazi Germany, and you can't justify using flags or symbols meant to push a pro-Hitler mindset just by claiming they used red fields back during the Nazi era. Feel free to report any post where someone tries to claim a flag or emblem is Nazi just based on the color of the first field on the shield.

And man, I have zero patience for those repetitive, parrot-like arguments... things like "that symbol was used by Nazis so it's fine today" or "that salute is actually a historic American greeting" (especially when people start making up fake legal rulings from courts in El Paso to back it up). It's just mindless, recycled garbage that clogs up the thread and makes everyone dumber. It's nothing but pure propaganda designed to muddy the waters, and I'm not letting it happen here.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:That flag doesn't violate any laws because we aren't talking about the official national flag here, just an ethnic one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_flag

First off, no, that isn't an "ethnic flag," but thanks for giving me a good laugh with your latest bit of wisdom on the subject...

2. Since you have special access to the Politics section, according to the forum rules, you don't actually have permission to comment on anything related to Politics over on the PŽK board either... just thought I'd remind you...

lonebadger6 said:Feel free to report any posts where some variation of the coat of arms is labeled as Nazi, just because it features a white field first. It’s impossible to monitor every single thread and every individual post on every topic.

I am glad to know that the color of the first field is irrelevant in this regard.

lonebadger6 said:I didn't delete your post myself, but if I were to delete it, I would do so for these reasons:

1) Because we have already seen a mountain of these kinds of debates across numerous threads.
2) Because while it certainly addresses the potential accusation that this is a "Nazi coat of arms," it fails to address the core issue: the fact that the President of the United States, despite the existing Flag Act, is photographed alongside symbols that violate that law and could technically lead to criminal charges. A nation's flag and coat of arms are determined by law, not by someone's personal preferences. And the law exists to prevent tampering with them. While it's one thing if the law is applied loosely when individuals use a certain flag for personal reasons or sentimental memories—which is often tolerated or waved around in public (or they're in Canada, so they aren't even liable)—it is quite another matter for the President of the United States to be smiling for photos next to flags and emblems that violate American laws.

Regarding point 1), I agree there. However, in this specific instance, my post followed a series of arguments centered specifically on that first field. But fine, a line had to be drawn somewhere, and if my post is that line, so be it.
As for point 2), I disagree. There are regulations regarding the official coat of arms and flag, but those apply to official state functions, not an informal dinner. Even if such an "unofficial" flag were displayed at an official function, it wouldn't constitute a crime; at most, it would be a breach of protocol. It’s like if the U.S. President posed with an American flag that had 13, 33, or 48 stars instead of the 50 prescribed on the official U.S. flag. What law was broken? None. You might violate certain regulations if an unofficial flag is displayed where the official one is mandated—like on the front of a government building—but that is the absolute limit of what constitutes a legal violation. Unless, of course, something explicitly offensive is drawn on the flag, like drawing a penis over it and displaying that... (in America, per the First Amendment, you can burn the flag, deface it, or draw a penis on it...). So, essentially, it is forbidden to disparage official symbols or misuse them as prescribed, but there is no prohibition against displaying historical or folk versions of American symbols. Is it forbidden to display a flag from a specific region or a different era?
If the President had truly violated any law, it wouldn't just be a matter of reaction from a few leftist news outlets; actual legal complaints would have been filed.
So, you are completely wrong on this.
Since we are talking about breaking the law, a news outlet once published the American flag with a swastika drawn over it. I think anyone with good intentions wouldn't view such a symbol as a compliment, but rather as an insult and a violation of the laws governing the flag and coat of arms. Even then, there were no legal consequences. Personally, I don't mind such an outcome because I categorize that unpleasant display under freedom of speech, but if you are genuinely worried about Hillary Clinton posing with an unofficial flag, then I assume you were probably shocked by that swastika on the American flag.

The issue regarding the deleted post has been settled, and whether high-ranking government officials ought to be mindful of which flags they pose with is hardly a discussion that belongs on this subforum.