Soviet Swastika. Real or otherwise?

[theyounghistorian77]

My first reaction was: "looks fake". However, I found this picture of the same document:

which looks more realistic to me (although I'm not an expert on photoshop at all). In any case, the symbol itself looks genuine, there are several other versions. You can find them if you google "LUNGTN" and change the language settings to 'Russian' in advanced search. (link to the above picture: here)
I get 1130 hits in total: apparently the Russians are obsessed with this on their fora. I have no idea what they say, I don't speak Russian. My guess is that there are even more Russian conspiracy theorists than American ones.
In any case, I don't understand the fuss. Swastikas were commonplace all over the world before the Nazis used them, so what if they did copy it from Russia?

The fuss is twofold

1) IThe image itself is disputed by ad initium,

2) Ray (the blogger whom im critiquing) is arguing that The Swastika as a symbol is somehow automaticly Leftist, and thus that Nazi usage of the swastika is somehow evidence that they were leftist. An absurd position, Isn't it?

 

[Laurens]

Was Hitler a Buddhist too?

 

[DepricatedZero]

2) Ray (the blogger whom im critiquing) is arguing that The Swastika as a symbol is somehow automaticly Leftist, and thus that Nazi usage of the swastika is somehow evidence that they were leftist. An absurd position, Isn't it?

Absolutely. It's fallacious to say that anything which came before is explicitly or even implicitly associated by resemblance. Perhaps a historian's fallacy, to be specific - to say that they had used the image (which had been spiritually iconic for millenia) for its political association decades after the fact.

In reality, it was probably being used for one of its many spiritual meanings - life, good luck, protection, to name a few - in this instance. The symbol is no more Leftist than a neolithic basket weaver. The association being applied didn't exist until after the creation of the logo, REGARDLESS of whether the logo was "digitally remastered."

 

[Predanator]

This is where you have to slam your analysis down on occam's razor, as I said earlier.

Unfortunately, signs point to both sides of the coin, so we have to decide which is more compelling. IF we accept that the translation is not fabricated, which we have no reason to believe it is, then the question is this:

Which is more likely, A or B?

Let A be: The book describes an emblem and shows an example of it. The colored ink was more resilient than the mass-produced black ink and is still fairly bright.

Let B be: A photoshopper faked a book with Russian text describing the dimensions of the logo they had created, and successfully circulated it as a historical photo.

Alternatively, let B be: A photoshopper found a description in Russian which vaguely matched the logo they had made up. They managed to preserve the color and shading of the page perfectly as they removed the logo already present in the book, and then overlaid their own logo on the book, then successfully circulated it as a historical photo.

In either case, A seems much more reasonable than B. Just because something CAN be photoshopped, does not mean it was. There is enough compelling evidence for authenticity to suggest that this is real.

Please list compelling evidence when you claim it... Like how black ink in a logo is magically more resilient than mass-produced black ink... Like how blurred bits can't be made with a smudge or blur tool... Like how background imperfections can't be made visible through an applied layer many different ways... Like how it is impractical for thousands of UFO photos to have all been faked.

Occam's Razor is not applied properly in the quoted post. Adding in charged language into the choices is biased. The authenticity is the option that requires evidence. The uploader is essentially making the claim so the burden of proof is on authenticity. Not believing is the default position. If there were many pictures or pictures from academic and historical sources, then the issue would be different, but a single image with no provenance is not compelling.

Compelling evidence would be more photographs from that book, showing other emblems or this emblem at different angles. Compelling evidence would be pictures at the original resolution of the scan or photo, which would be much larger. Compelling evidence would be photographs including uniforms with the emblem sewn on. Being impressed by an image is not evidence, and not compelling... ever see UFO pictures?

Occam's Razor leads to something more like, Someone likely found a description in a Russian book which loosely fit the idea of a potentially controversial logo. They removed the logo already present in the book (if there was one), and then overlaid a new logo on the book, reduced the image size/resolution to hide their work, then uploaded it to wikipedia. Oddly, the logo didn't even mean what they had hoped, but in fact had a plethora of uncontroversial meanings for centuries.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Please list compelling evidence when you claim it...

Read the thread. It's all in here. Do your own analysis, I'm not here to think for you.

Like how black ink in a logo is magically more resilient than mass-produced black ink...

It's not. The black ink the logo is EQUALLY as faded as the black ink of the lettering.

Like how blurred bits can't be made with a smudge or blur tool...

The simple fact that something can be done in such a manner does not mean it was done in that manner. None of the other data indicates this to be the case.

. Like how background imperfections can't be made visible through an applied layer many different ways...

This akes no sense - background imperfections are easy to reveal or mask.

Like how it is impractical for thousands of UFO photos to have all been faked.

If you're a Truther, theres a whole other forum for you to talk about the Reptilians in. No need to derail threads, and I won't bite that bait here.

Occam's Razor is not applied properly in the quoted post.

I'm not sure you understand the premise of "reasonable" then.

Adding in charged language into the choices is biased.

What charged language?

The authenticity is the option that requires evidence. The uploader is essentially making the claim so the burden of proof is on authenticity. Not believing is the default position. If there were many pictures or pictures from academic and historical sources, then the issue would be different, but a single image with no provenance is not compelling.

Not quite, I'm afraid. The onus is on the one declaring it fake. I do not look at a book on a shelf and assume that it is a safe, nor do I presume that all keys are just foil-wrapped chocolate. While it isn't proper to blindly accept something, a sound analysis when in doubt is appropriate. However, if you find no evidence that the item has been tampered with, then one must presume that their analysis shows it to be real.

Compelling evidence would be more photographs from that book,

Compelling evidence is flawless consistency.

showing other emblems or this emblem at different angles.

Why would anyone take pictures at different angles? And couldn't those be faked just as easily? I suspect you would cry foul on those as well.

Compelling evidence would be pictures at the original resolution of the scan or photo, which would be much larger.

Why would anyone post the 'original'? I often compress my photos, otherwise they take too much space and are unwieldy for showing people.

Compelling evidence would be photographs including uniforms with the emblem sewn on.

What reason have we to believe that the emblem was ever produced as a patch?

Being impressed by an image is not evidence, and not compelling... ever see UFO pictures?

I'll reiterate, if you want to go on a Truther rant there's another forum for that. The "default position" is that, so long as it is reasonably likely, and there is no evidence that it has been faked, then it is likely authentic.

Occam's Razor leads to something more like, Someone likely found a description in a Russian book which loosely fit the idea of a potentially controversial logo. They removed the logo already present in the book (if there was one), and then overlaid a new logo on the book, reduced the image size/resolution to hide their work, then uploaded it to wikipedia. Oddly, the logo didn't even mean what they had hoped, but in fact had a plethora of uncontroversial meanings for centuries.

So, let A be: "The photo is legitimate, the vibrancy of the red is due to the resilience of the ink."

Let B be: "Someone likely found a description in a Russian book which loosely fit the idea of a potentially controversial logo. They removed the logo already present in the book (if there was one), and then overlaid a new logo on the book, reduced the image size/resolution to hide their work, then uploaded it to wikipedia. Oddly, the logo didn't even mean what they had hoped, but in fact had a plethora of uncontroversial meanings for centuries."

 

[Predanator]

Please list compelling evidence when you claim it...

Read the thread. It's all in here. Do your own analysis, I'm not here to think for you.

I've read the thread... and there is no evidence, only claims of evidence. You claim the photo looks real, and that is your only claim of evidence. You arbitrarily dismiss the name of the symbol not fitting your claim. I'm not here to do the thinking for you... and the fact you didn't realize I was comparing your claims of "evidence" with similar claims of UFO "evidence" means this is completely pointless. Believe all the wikipedia and blog evidence you want, that doesn't make it credible.

Rant on as you wish... I am done with this non-issue.

 

[DepricatedZero]

I've read the thread... and there is no evidence, only claims of evidence.

Actually, claims both ways.

You claim the photo looks real, and that is your only claim of evidence.

Analysis reveals no evidence of photo manipulation whatsoever. Last I checked I don't believe that because there's no evidence of god, god therefore is real. This is the exact same argument are you are making. Likewise I do not believe that no evidence of photo manipulation proves how skilled the manipulator was. I believe it indicates that there was, indeed, no manipulation. There's a second photo of the same page in this thread, if you didn't notice. It's taken without flash, and from a different angle - and as I suspected you disregard that.

You arbitrarily dismiss the name of the symbol not fitting your claim.

Your wind horse red herring? No, I didn't arbitrarily dismiss it. I analyzed the likelihood that they had meant "wind horse" in the description you provided. The translation you used to support your claim actually exactly matches the emblem, with the only questionable part being the word used for the swastika. However, a quick search shows that the Kalmyk are of Mongolian descent, and their language likely reflects this - and the Mongolian word for the wind-horse logo you referenced is хийморь. Having such a word in their own vernacular would preclude using a loanword from Latin, as suggested. Note that хийморь appears nowhere in the text. That said, we still aren't certain what LYUNGTN refers to. However, it appears likely that it was the word chosen to refer to the Swastika, especially because the translation of "rsfsr" into Cyrillic is РСФСР. Note the Ef(Ф) that's centered inside of the Swastika.

The text doesn't just "kind of resemble" it EXACTLY MATCHES the logo.

I'm not here to do the thinking for you... and the fact you didn't realize I was comparing your claims of "evidence" with similar claims of UFO "evidence" means this is completely pointless.

Hyperbole has no place in an honest discussion, and you're the one brandishing claims of "charged language."

Believe all the wikipedia and blog evidence you want, that doesn't make it credible.

Lack of evidence of manipulation does not support your claim of manipulation.

Rant on as you wish... I am done with this non-issue.

See ya.

(edit: changed falsehood to manipulation to stay on point)

 

[Pulsar]

I've got some more information:

On the website http://nork.ru/fylfot/red_army.html, which doesn't look like a conspiracy site, you can find a translation of the document. More interestingly, it says at the bottom:

The information was taken from the journal Kommersant VLAST # 30 (381), August 1, 2000, p. 54. The original of the order is being kept in the Russian State War Archive.

In other words, the Russian journal Kommersant VLAST ran a story about this (maybe that's where one of the pictures comes from), and the document itself is in the Russian State War Archive.

Also, there's even a Russian wikipage about this document. Now, I don't know the trustworthiness of the Russian wikipedia, but it's further proof that the document is real.

And from another Russian wiki page, about the swastika in general, and which also refers to the document, I managed to decipher that the word "LYUNGTN" is a mistake in the text. It should be "люнгта", or "LUNGTA", which is not a Russian word but a Buddhist word (that's why it was capitalized). It means 'wind horse', or 'whirlwind', and it does refer to the swastika.

Good god, I'm actually spending my holidays with this... although it's fun doing this detective work

 

[Predanator]

For the sake of completion, there was a real article with a thumbnail of the unmodified image of the page.
There is a swastika on it...
but the picture circulating has been photoshopped, at least removing the provenance on the first page,
that authenticates the original image.

http://www.kommersant.ru/doc-rss.aspx?DocsID=17338
It was about an exhibit from the military archive in 2000.

I still can't find a source that claims a swastika is a wind horse, that's the first thing I searched for...
but Lungta is not Latin and apparently люнгта is a Cyrillic-ization of that word.
Other than making that link, this topic is dead.

 

[EssentialPedagogy]

Plenty of countries used swastikas. The US military used swastikas when it joined in WW2. Doesn't mean anything in regards to the Nazis or anything like that.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Plenty of countries used swastikas. The US military used swastikas when it joined in WW2. Doesn't mean anything in regards to the Nazis or anything like that.

Yeah i agree with you, but this thread ended up in a debate over what Lungta meant for the Kalmyks (ie did they represent it as a swastika?)

As far as i see it, either way It's still a buddhist swastika to me (a common symbol in the buddhist world)