Gestapo Staff Car Incident (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter King & Country
- Start date
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
Well said Mitch:wink2: Good to see some of the ex member posts again . There were indeed some very interesting threads, this one was no exception in that it stirred up folk on both sides. Not sure how I feel about the set now, can't say I'm offended by it because its a guy being marched away / into captivity so there is nothing to be offended by really. This set caused nowhere near as controversy the Brown shirt sets did if I recall. But whatever the side you are on in these debates , when it stays civil they are really enjoyable :salute::
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
I was more interested in post 33 as being illuminating and a few comments by other members some of whom were banned!!
I don't think you would agree with me in my thoughts on the subject.
On the set I had no issues with what the set depicted any more than the assassination of Heydrich, the pooping trooper or the p'ing soldier. I know people who were offended by all of those sets. I wonder if these people who get this offended or see a set and imagine up a connection to camps etc watch things like the world at war or the secret army and write complaint letters to all and sundry?
I think the reply to the point of pulling advertising was a good one from K&C that part just looked petulant and trying to say I am the big toy soldier firm who pays you lots of money. It was not needed in a reply to a person clearly annoyed at the number of Nazi items available and selling well. The main part completely negated his entire argument and a similar conversation in e-mail over many weeks I had with him on the subject of German items especially those depicting the units that people get their knickers in a twist about. Its similar to the debates we have had on here about people hating the LAH/Berlin range yet happy to display a Totenkopf AFV on their shelf or any other Waffen SS item. Totenkopf is especially interesting in its matter of fact easy to collect for many collectors as if we take the issue to its extreme then these formations derived from Camp guards.
Interesting subject matter nonetheless
Mitch
I don't think you would agree with me in my thoughts on the subject.
On the set I had no issues with what the set depicted any more than the assassination of Heydrich, the pooping trooper or the p'ing soldier. I know people who were offended by all of those sets. I wonder if these people who get this offended or see a set and imagine up a connection to camps etc watch things like the world at war or the secret army and write complaint letters to all and sundry?
I think the reply to the point of pulling advertising was a good one from K&C that part just looked petulant and trying to say I am the big toy soldier firm who pays you lots of money. It was not needed in a reply to a person clearly annoyed at the number of Nazi items available and selling well. The main part completely negated his entire argument and a similar conversation in e-mail over many weeks I had with him on the subject of German items especially those depicting the units that people get their knickers in a twist about. Its similar to the debates we have had on here about people hating the LAH/Berlin range yet happy to display a Totenkopf AFV on their shelf or any other Waffen SS item. Totenkopf is especially interesting in its matter of fact easy to collect for many collectors as if we take the issue to its extreme then these formations derived from Camp guards.
Interesting subject matter nonetheless
Mitch
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
I was more interested in post 33 as being illuminating and a few comments by other members some of whom were banned!!
I don't think you would agree with me in my thoughts on the subject.
On the set I had no issues with what the set depicted any more than the assassination of Heydrich, the pooping trooper or the p'ing soldier. I know people who were offended by all of those sets. I wonder if these people who get this offended or see a set and imagine up a connection to camps etc watch things like the world at war or the secret army and write complaint letters to all and sundry?
I think the reply to the point of pulling advertising was a good one from K&C that part just looked petulant and trying to say I am the big toy soldier firm who pays you lots of money. It was not needed in a reply to a person clearly annoyed at the number of Nazi items available and selling well. The main part completely negated his entire argument and a similar conversation in e-mail over many weeks I had with him on the subject of German items especially those depicting the units that people get their knickers in a twist about. Its similar to the debates we have had on here about people hating the LAH/Berlin range yet happy to display a Totenkopf AFV on their shelf or any other Waffen SS item. Totenkopf is especially interesting in its matter of fact easy to collect for many collectors as if we take the issue to its extreme then these formations derived from Camp guards.
Interesting subject matter nonetheless
Mitch
Doesn't matter if I would or not Mitch, that's the freedom of speech we've been talking about of late.
I don't judge anyone on if they collect LAH, I also think it is aesthetically a very attractive range. I wouldn't want to collect it myself but I don't think I've ever insulted anyone on here for doing so. We all make our own choices in what we have in our home and what we will not. As has been said many many times I have SS fighting troops because they were the guys on the ground fighting Britain and her allies, the LAH is depicting Nazi's trumpeting their ideology and therefore has no interest to me. For me its a simple distinction and not one that needs any angst or hand wringing.
Each to their own I say .
Rob
I don't think you would agree with me in my thoughts on the subject.
On the set I had no issues with what the set depicted any more than the assassination of Heydrich, the pooping trooper or the p'ing soldier. I know people who were offended by all of those sets. I wonder if these people who get this offended or see a set and imagine up a connection to camps etc watch things like the world at war or the secret army and write complaint letters to all and sundry?
I think the reply to the point of pulling advertising was a good one from K&C that part just looked petulant and trying to say I am the big toy soldier firm who pays you lots of money. It was not needed in a reply to a person clearly annoyed at the number of Nazi items available and selling well. The main part completely negated his entire argument and a similar conversation in e-mail over many weeks I had with him on the subject of German items especially those depicting the units that people get their knickers in a twist about. Its similar to the debates we have had on here about people hating the LAH/Berlin range yet happy to display a Totenkopf AFV on their shelf or any other Waffen SS item. Totenkopf is especially interesting in its matter of fact easy to collect for many collectors as if we take the issue to its extreme then these formations derived from Camp guards.
Interesting subject matter nonetheless
Mitch
Doesn't matter if I would or not Mitch, that's the freedom of speech we've been talking about of late.
I don't judge anyone on if they collect LAH, I also think it is aesthetically a very attractive range. I wouldn't want to collect it myself but I don't think I've ever insulted anyone on here for doing so. We all make our own choices in what we have in our home and what we will not. As has been said many many times I have SS fighting troops because they were the guys on the ground fighting Britain and her allies, the LAH is depicting Nazi's trumpeting their ideology and therefore has no interest to me. For me its a simple distinction and not one that needs any angst or hand wringing.
Each to their own I say .
Rob
Flyboy
Private 1st Class
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Messages
- 190
It is of interest to me that these types of soldiers, figures, scenes, display or diorama are produced and continue to be produced to remind the new generations of what happened and what needs never happen again. It does not seem to me that they are being presented in such a way to glorify the wrong doers of the past from what I have seen. As in everything there are those that just have to pitch a B about something. Mike
Jack
Major
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 6,347
History is always problematic. If a Zulu viewed my collection he would see Rorkes Drift, if a native American viewed Larso's collection he would see his own possibly painful history, and what about the Crusades? Figures from the age of Empires?
A magazine criticising figures on moral grounds yet simultaneously taking paid advertising is a tricky one. I think either act is completely justifiable, just not both at the same time. If you set the bar high for moral behaviour in others you need to be sure that you can withstand similar scrutiny.
A magazine criticising figures on moral grounds yet simultaneously taking paid advertising is a tricky one. I think either act is completely justifiable, just not both at the same time. If you set the bar high for moral behaviour in others you need to be sure that you can withstand similar scrutiny.
Mitch
Major General
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 13,519
Not sure its history that is the problem it is the way it is interpreted by individuals or groups that causes the problems. The magazine and editorial were an individuals response to his personal and obvious dislike of the Nazi's. He did in other responses say that it was not Germans per se but Nazi's he had issue with.
There was no problem in discussing the set in detail but, it was not we discussed or Stuart did the image behind it and kind of went of on a tangent. Its just how the set was negatively seen by the editor and the worry the negative effect it would have on sales that caused Andy to respond like he did.
For me, at least, it showed that regardless of the money paid for advertising the magazine remained independent of the influence large companies think they have or, should have when they have some clout in a given area.
As I said the response was sufficient up to the point where he began to go on about advertising money to exert some form of extra pressure on the magazine. You have to accept that some won't like the things you release (even if the reasons are not about the actual aesthetic traits of the set but a morally held opinion of a regime) Its a bit like on here some like some don't but, trying to supress what you don't like by certain means is wrong no matter who you think you are.
Mitch
UOTE=Jack;597821]History is always problematic. If a Zulu viewed my collection he would see Rorkes Drift, if a native American viewed Larso's collection he would see his own possibly painful history, and what about the Crusades? Figures from the age of Empires?
A magazine criticising figures on moral grounds yet simultaneously taking paid advertising is a tricky one. I think either act is completely justifiable, just not both at the same time. If you set the bar high for moral behaviour in others you need to be sure that you can withstand similar scrutiny.[/QUOTE]
There was no problem in discussing the set in detail but, it was not we discussed or Stuart did the image behind it and kind of went of on a tangent. Its just how the set was negatively seen by the editor and the worry the negative effect it would have on sales that caused Andy to respond like he did.
For me, at least, it showed that regardless of the money paid for advertising the magazine remained independent of the influence large companies think they have or, should have when they have some clout in a given area.
As I said the response was sufficient up to the point where he began to go on about advertising money to exert some form of extra pressure on the magazine. You have to accept that some won't like the things you release (even if the reasons are not about the actual aesthetic traits of the set but a morally held opinion of a regime) Its a bit like on here some like some don't but, trying to supress what you don't like by certain means is wrong no matter who you think you are.
Mitch
UOTE=Jack;597821]History is always problematic. If a Zulu viewed my collection he would see Rorkes Drift, if a native American viewed Larso's collection he would see his own possibly painful history, and what about the Crusades? Figures from the age of Empires?
A magazine criticising figures on moral grounds yet simultaneously taking paid advertising is a tricky one. I think either act is completely justifiable, just not both at the same time. If you set the bar high for moral behaviour in others you need to be sure that you can withstand similar scrutiny.[/QUOTE]
