Why not more Modern Fighting Men (and women!)? (3 Viewers)

[desk11desk12]

Its history that draws me to the hobby, not current events. Perhaps in 40 or 50 years when the present time period becomes more history than reading a newspaper I will become interested in collecting it. While I have a large amount of my collection in WWII, I find myself being more and more drawn to the earlier time periods, especially after John Jenkins began to offer the Seven Years War. Next on my wish list is to begin collecting Spartens and other ancients. Of course Napoleonic figures are some of my favorite as well but as far as present time period figures and vehicles, they hold no collecting attraction for me.

I find myself agreeing with you. Also, like fine wine, events have to grow on you to get a better perspective on them.

Unfortunately it takes time for that happen and for the market demand to develop.

However, I do have some Figarti, KC and FOV modern era sets I do enjoy.

Carlos

 

[Tex]

Hardly any toy soldiers were produced during WWII of course.

I know that at least one American company continued to produce toy soldiers, but I don't know what company. I say this because my brother has two American soldiers on parade from the early war years that are made from a cheap, brittle rubber. Unfortunately, the soldiers have no markings on them to indicate a company.

For a better perspective on the modern-day toy soldier idea, we might want to look at K&Cs special forces series. These are an exception to my comments about never seeing accurate modern soldiers--they were well done, as I recall. I was not interested, since the sets depicted current events, but they were quite detailed. Perhaps Andy could give us some insight.

 

[maloyalo]

Those rubber soldiers might be made by Auburn, but probably before the US entered the war. I remember seeing some figures from that period in the books, including an interesting Eithiopean soldier. Sun Rubber was another company, but I am not sure when they were around.

I am working from memory (as usual...) but think Heyde, the large german soldier company was destroyed by bombing at Dresden. Both metals and rubber were characterized as war-essential, so were not available to the toy companies, which generally were making war materials anyway. The composition figures were probably made during the war, being basically wood and glue. There were also 'identification models' like tanks, made from metal.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Gentlemen,

Collecter Jack Matthews (who has one of the 2 or 3 largest collections of Toy Soldiers in the country, something like 35,000 figures) wrote a book on American War Toys made during WWII. He was kind enought to present me with an autographed copy. Jack was a young boy during the War, his dad was in the service, and these were some of the toys he played with as a boy (along with many I'm sure he coveted and bought for his collection later in life). You would be surprised at the extent of WWII toys made during WWII by various American toy companies, in a variety of materials (enough to fill a book).

 

[maloyalo]

Mr. L. Badolato,

Well I am sure Mr Matthews could tell me a thing or two, but I don't think you realize I happen to have one of the 448,982th to 448,983rd largest collections of toy soldiers in the world & me pappy was a kid during the war. He told me he made his own, using homecast molds I guess, out of what led he could find.

I think I sold some WWII era paper & cardboard soldiers to Mr Matthews a long time ago. I came accross a bunch, still in there packaging, I think mailer envelopes.

 

[Louis Badolato]

I'm glad you know Jack. He is one of the really good people of our hobby, a true gentleman (although, truthfully, most of the folks I've met through this hobby have been really good people).

 

[maloyalo]

I do not know him actually, it was a sale off a Toy Soldier magazine classifieds. But I do know what you mean. The shared interest usually means some shared traits or similiarities in people. So of course you like them!

Actually, I think you can tell quite a bit from your sales results with Toy Soldiers and the collectors. I am not a big seller, but I believe I only had 2-3 people out of 200 not send payments. A very good bunch all in all.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Neither does a Blackwell Corporation sniper who only went over there to make money – there’s no honour in mercenary service.

I would like to take 5 minutes to point out some misconceptions about Blackwell- CS, I am not beating you up here, you just brought this matter up. Nothing personal at all.

First of all, to me, a mercenary, by definition is an individual who sells their services to the highest bidder without a moral compass to guide them as to whether or not what they are doing is right or wrong.

Blackwell Corporation is held to the same national security restrictions other major American corportaions like Bell, Honeywell, McDonnell, etc are held- they cannot engage in commerce with any ANY nation that is blacklisted by the American government. To do so would be criminal.

A vast majority of Blackwell Operators are VERY VERY highly trained former American or British military personnel with several years of experience. These are not the Joe's and Bubba's from the French Foreign Legion. As such, these individuals have personal friendships with many military persons operating in the same theaters that they are in. They are also quite patriotic and loyal to their countries and, through discipline and training that they have already received, they would be very very skiddish of engaging in an act contrary to the national security interests of the countries they are from.

From another point of view- these individuals decided sometime in their professional careers to make their livings on the business end of an M16. During the course of that career option, they decide to attend the American SF school at Ft. Bragg or SAS training modules in England to make themselves as absolutely perfect in their profession as possible. It would be the same as you or I choosing to enter the law profession and going to a prestigious law school like Harvard or Yale. SF and SAS training are the "Yales and Harvards" of that choosen profession. If I were to go through Yale Law School, your darn right I would probably take the job that paid the most- why should these guys be looked at any differently??

Blackwell also offers EXCEPTIONAL salaries and benefit packages- something that even the most ELITE soldier in the US is not provided when serving his country. Why should these guys be frowned upon for capitalizing on their training- there are tons of guys who go into the army to get money for college (yours truly) and/or specialized trade skills so that they can benefit themselves and their own families- again, why should these guys be looked at any differently simpy because they made their living on the business end of an M16??

The "Blackwells" of the GWOT are just another example of modern battlefield evolution. This concept is no less controversial than tank warfare was in 1914-15, or the atomic bomb/arsenal was during 1945 and into the Cold War. Good, bad or indifferent, the "Private Security firm" will be a mainstay on the modern battlefield.

As I said CS- This wasn't an attack on you, just opening this up a bit. Mods, sorry if I breached protocol- feel free to modify as necc.

CC

 

[Tex]

Makes sense to me. Good point.

Not to be a *****, but isn't it "Blackwater?"

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Yeah, it's "Blackwater", my mistake. Shows how much regard I have for them that I can't get their silly name right (though we're not the first to make this semantic slip-up: http://grant-montgomery.blogspot.com/2007/05/blackwell-part-of-shadow-army-in-iraq.html).

Chris, no personal offence taken whatsoever. It is an interesting problem. Against my better judgment I'll respond to your post because I think this is a very serious issue and opinions are still forming about it, and not necessarily along traditional right/left lines as I'll explain below. So I hope what I write may have some value and not be so highly political because ideology concerning this issue has not become entrenched yet.

I've read lots of arguments/excuses for why Blackwater and their kind are okay but none of them sit well with me or are particularly convincing. I think many people share my anxiety that if we allow paramilitary corporations to start popping up everywhere and replacing the traditional armed forces, they have the potential to grow out of our control.

-First, not everyone that works at Blackwater is former special forces or "elite". If they were it would be a pretty geriatric force. A lot are just police officers or private citizens. The only training they share in common is attending Blackwater's facility which may or may not be up to the high training standard of the REAL US military.

-Whether turning against one's own government is officially "legal" or not is irrelevant to a mercenary force. Mercenary companies have demonstrated time and again that they operate above the law of any country or for that matter, any ethical code. That's part of why they signed up to be mercs - they like operating outside the rules. In former Yogoslavia DynCorp employees were involved in the illegal trade of children against their will for "you know what". Blackwater employees have been charged with smugling weapons into Iraq for the "Kurdish Workers Party" to use, a terrorist force according to the US and UN. When your main loyalty is making money, who is to say that one day one of the mercenary corporations might not suddenly switch sides? Remember, Blackwater is apparently now close to a brigade-sized force and they are stacked with guys recruited from all over the world, including Russia and South America who may not have the same loyalty to the host country.

-It's not just that they'll turn against their own government. It's that they can freely commit war crimes without being held to the same standards of accountability and justice as normal military personal. Blackwater has almost lost its license a couple of times due to gunning down innocent people unprovoked. Several military commanders in Iraq have commented that they are like a bunch of reckless gun-toting cowboys, stirring up a hornets nest wherever they operate and ultimately doing more harm than good in terms of winning hearts and minds.

-I agree the privatization of war is going to continue into the future, now that Iraq has set the model. Private contractors will also increasingly be turned against the population of their home country, as happened during Hurricane Katrina when armed Blackwater troops were contracted (without any bidding) to enforce security in the disaster zone, and, presumably, shoot American citizens on site with little accountability for their actions. Anyone that worries about the state exercising unchecked power against it's citizens should be concerned by this development. A mercenary force is the antithesis of the citizen's militia, the idea enshrined in the US Constitution and the main reason for the right to bear arms in the US. Mercenaries are citizens motivated by profit to enforce the state's agenda, even if it might be fascist. A militia, on the contrary, are citizens motivated by love of country and patriotism who are prepared to fight for their rights and freedoms against the excesses of the state.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Mercenaries are in violation of the Geneva convention for a reason. And ultimately, I morally object to the idea of killing for profit. I shake my head at the fact that our Western values have slid to the point where we think mercs are perfectly acceptable. Traditionally mercs have been more of an Eastern idea. Hannibal employed them heavily but the Romans did not because they wanted loyal citizen soldiers who served for love of country not love of money.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

One more point Chris, and I feel for you here buddy:

The issue of US service personnel not receiving adequate salaries and pensions can be addressed without resorting to mercenaries. Perhaps the US army needs to start funding its "boots on the ground" for what they are really worth and not pouring money into corporate defence contractor's bottomless pockets (you guys need a union!). Moreover, if your concern is your own personal salary/benefits, then I would be against Blackwater if I were you because the shift to private provision of military services will only weaken the benefits and bargaining power of public armed forces personnel like yourself. Traditionally when a service formally provided exclusively by the government is partially privatized, there is a steady erosion of capability and government funding away from the public sphere and into the private sphere. Since Blackwater soldiers are paid much higher than government servicemen, the money to employ them will come partially out of the salaries of public servicemen, and likely a reduced effectiveness of the public military force as a whole. The US army's former recruitment slogan was "An Army of One". Not "An Army of One Hundred Private Military Corporations".

 

[nmrocks]

Yeah, it's "Blackwater", my mistake. Shows how much regard I have for them that I can't get their silly name right (though we're not the first to make this semantic slip-up: http://grant-montgomery.blogspot.com/2007/05/blackwell-part-of-shadow-army-in-iraq.html).

Chris, no personal offence taken whatsoever. It is an interesting problem. Against my better judgment I'll respond to your post because I think this is a very serious issue and opinions are still forming about it, and not necessarily along traditional right/left lines as I'll explain below. So I hope what I write may have some value and not be so highly political because ideology concerning this issue has not become entrenched yet.

I've read lots of arguments/excuses for why Blackwater and their kind are okay but none of them sit well with me or are particularly convincing. I think many people share my anxiety that if we allow paramilitary corporations to start popping up everywhere and replacing the traditional armed forces, they have the potential to grow out of our control.

-First, not everyone that works at Blackwater is former special forces or "elite". If they were it would be a pretty geriatric force. A lot are just police officers or private citizens. The only training they share in common is attending Blackwater's facility which may or may not be up to the high training standard of the REAL US military.

-Whether turning against one's own government is officially "legal" or not is irrelevant to a mercenary force. Mercenary companies have demonstrated time and again that they operate above the law of any country or for that matter, any ethical code. That's part of why they signed up to be mercs - they like operating outside the rules. In former Yogoslavia DynCorp employees were involved in the illegal trade of children against their will for "you know what". Blackwater employees have been charged with smugling weapons into Iraq for the "Kurdish Workers Party" to use, a terrorist force according to the US and UN. When your main loyalty is making money, who is to say that one day one of the mercenary corporations might not suddenly switch sides? Remember, Blackwater is apparently now close to a brigade-sized force and they are stacked with guys recruited from all over the world, including Russia and South America who may not have the same loyalty to the host country.

-It's not just that they'll turn against their own government. It's that they can freely commit war crimes without being held to the same standards of accountability and justice as normal military personal. Blackwater has almost lost its license a couple of times due to gunning down innocent people unprovoked. Several military commanders in Iraq have commented that they are like a bunch of reckless gun-toting cowboys, stirring up a hornets nest wherever they operate and ultimately doing more harm than good in terms of winning hearts and minds.

-I agree the privatization of war is going to continue into the future, now that Iraq has set the model. Private contractors will also increasingly be turned against the population of their home country, as happened during Hurricane Katrina when armed Blackwater troops were contracted (without any bidding) to enforce security in the disaster zone, and, presumably, shoot American citizens on site with little accountability for their actions. Anyone that worries about the state exercising unchecked power against it's citizens should be concerned by this development. A mercenary force is the antithesis of the citizen's militia, the idea enshrined in the US Constitution and the main reason for the right to bear arms in the US. Mercenaries are citizens motivated by profit to enforce the state's agenda, even if it might be fascist. A militia, on the contrary, are citizens motivated by love of country and patriotism who are prepared to fight for their rights and freedoms against the excesses of the state.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Mercenaries are in violation of the Geneva convention for a reason. And ultimately, I morally object to the idea of killing for profit. I shake my head at the fact that our Western values have slid to the point where we think mercs are perfectly acceptable. Traditionally mercs have been more of an Eastern idea. Hannibal employed them heavily but the Romans did not because they wanted loyal citizen soldiers who served for love of country not love of money.

Cs,
We've had good relations but frankly, your starting to talk out of your ***, please stop so we can remain respectful of each others country.
Ray

 

[jazzeum]

Gents,

There's a reason we try not to talk politics here (although we're not always too vigilant about it). Can we try to stay clear of the topic and return to the subject of the thread.

 

[maloyalo]

Its too bad such things get overheated so quickly, for that is a very interesting topic and I had some concerns over related issues. I was not even aware of Blackwater...I really do need to keep up better!

But Toy Soldiers it is.

Make Toys not War

 

[Tex]

Traditionally mercs have been more of an Eastern idea.

I am not continuing the Blackwater debate--I am just making a historical comment.
I would like to point out that mercenaries are not historically a uniquely Eastern idea. During the 100 years war, both France and England relied heavily on mercenaries, causing an overall growth in the number of European Mercenaries and setting an example that was followed in warfare for several centuries afterward. The mercenaries of the 100 years war are generally linked, along with many, many other factors, with the decline of the medieval period which is, in turn, often viewed as the beginning of more organized nation-states by the modern definition.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Cs,
We've had good relations but frankly, your starting to talk out of your ***, please stop so we can remain respectful of each others country.
Ray

Sorry Ray - for the record, I wasn't disrespecting the US - as a corporation Blackwater transcends any country, and there are a lot of PMCs operating out of other countries like Britain etc. I'm sure one will start up in Canada any day now. This is an issue for everyone in the world...

Like I said in a different thread yesterday (and then not following my own good advice here ), it's absolutely impossible to talk current world events without offending someone so I'm not going to do it ever again. If there was ever any question why toy soldier companies aren't making more modern troops, I think it's been answered in spades.

 

[nmrocks]

Sorry Ray - for the record, I wasn't disrespecting the US - as a corporation Blackwater transcends any country, and there are a lot of PMCs operating out of other countries like Britain etc. I'm sure one will start up in Canada any day now. This is an issue for everyone in the world...

Like I said in a different thread yesterday (and then not following my own good advice here ), it's absolutely impossible to talk current world events without offending someone so I'm not going to do it ever again. If there was ever any question why toy soldier companies aren't making more modern troops, I think it's been answered in spades.

Cs,
Hey man, excuse my overly colorful post, from my standpoint the Blackwater and mercenary topic is completely OK with me and worthy of discussion regardless of a point of view.
What set me off was the Katrina/mercenary comments.
Katrina was a mess no doubt, but it's not the fault or responsibility of the Gov't.
Ray

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Sorry about that, as I said everyone has their very different views on current world issues and there's no way to know ahead of time what particular view might tick people off, so discussing them is like walking in a minefield. Indeed, truth be told I felt like letting loose with a few expletives too when I read your comment in the ebay section that there's no reason our children won't live better lives than ourselves (I think Katrina is only a foreshadow of what is to come unless the global economy immediately reverses course in a number of key ways). So let's both be offended, call it even, and go back to being friends.

 

[Harrytheheid]

CS,
I hope you don't mind that I'm copying, pasting and changing a sentence that you wrote just a little bit, but personally speaking, "I (myself) morally object to the idea of killing fellow human beings for any reason". Wasn't this why we in the western democracies fought a World War against Fascism only 60 years ago? And wouldn't we do it again if necessary?
I would certainly like to think so.

Best Regards
H

 

[Canadian Samurai]

I agree Harry, but didn't we have to kill those poor German soldiers in order to stop fascism? I do believe there can be such a thing as a just war and killing in self defence. Anyway, blah blah blah politics.