Welcome to the Strelets Forum.
Please feel free to discuss any aspect of 1/72 scale plastic figures, not simply Strelets.
If you have any questions about our products then we will answer them here.
Given that this is a forum about collecting and wargaming, it is inevitable that "touchy" topics may be discussed at times. Looting, pillaging, killing and raping civilians and others have been the reality for almost every people involved in war, since the beginning of times... There isn't a single army involved in WW1 and WW2 that hasn't committed some sort of atrocity, in either small or large scale.
What is certain is that the Nazis considered Russians as "inferior" people and didn't do anything to discourage horrible things happening to the civilians left behind the retreating Red Army.... So I guess that on occasion there must have been horrible things going on behind the battle lines. Remember that Ukraine was in the middle of all this and that much of the fighting took place there.
When the Russians invaded former Eastern Germany they committed the same atrocities than the German and their allies committed in Russia... this is the sadness of war.
So, in short, I really don't think that Strelets intended to insult anybody.
Strelets must make some WWII Hungarians and Bulgarians so the Romanians can fight them over Transylvania and Southern Dobruja.
I guess that in this moment the problems between Romania versus Hungary and Bulgaria should be over. All three countries are members of NATO. Romania and Hungary are also members of EU. I am not sure if Bulgaria is in EU. She submitted the application.
The historical background of the model figures may be very useful especially items of uniform. The point about the peasant head dress and Dutch helmets explains why these are depicted on the figures.The same is true of the armaments.
The Strelets point about looting seems timid but rather than opening a can of worms unless it fits in with the way the figures are depicted it is best left to the history books. I think none of the figures are depicted looting. Starting a debate about the conduct of Romania (or Soviet Russia) in WWII is likely to lead to escalating counter claims of awfulness. Many people loot in times of war not just soldiers often it is greed sometimes it is about survival.
I presume people other than Romanians are going to buy these figures nevertheless it is probably a good idea to let customers decide for themselves whether Romanian troops looted more, the same, or less than other combatants.
This is not really the place to start an historical
dispute about who did what in WW2, but when Romanians will be able to accept the atrocities they commited in Odessa, Transistria and else we might eventually talk about what others dit to Romania. Nobody was a virgin in WW2 and refusing to accept that and always considering oneself to be the "victim" without looking to what really happened is not the right way to learn history . Anyway, its not here the right place to talk about it
we appreciate that some subjects can be particulary sensitive to one group of people or another but somebody well before us said:
"If you seed wind you harvesting storm", therefore all things must be put in right prospective from the very beginning. WWII in Eastern Europe was a war of annihilation from its inception and, quite frankly, looting was relatively minor thing if compared with other horrible things that were going on there, so is it so much surprising that it turned out that bitter at the end?
How are you ?
Some of your 1/72 figurines are "Red Army in Winter Dress", "Red Army in Summer Dress", "Red Army Winter War". For them, you wrote interesting things in "Introduction". However, you completely forgot the "looting" part.
I see you are also issuing 1/72 figurines for "German Stormtroops", "Austro-Hungarian Infantry in Gasmasks", "German Infantry in Gasmasks". I do not see any "Introduction" for them.
OK, I got the message. If you wrote what you wrote about the Romanian Army, what you were supposed to write about them ?
Hello to everybody,
I know this is not a Forum fully dedicated to history. However, people searching for the figurines issued by "Strelets” have interest in various times preceding us. Replies to my original message prove that many people read this Forum, so this is a good place to clarify how Romania ended as an Axis partner.
The start of war in September 1st, 1939 had Romania clearly on the side of the Allies. The remains of the Polish Army withdrew through Romania and arrived in Great Britain to fight another day. The Polish gold was evacuated through Romania and reached Great Britain. The Polish civilians who were refugees to Romania were not given to the Germans even after Romania became a member of the Axis, and some of them did not return to Poland and were still living in Romania in early 1990's. Romania's prime minister, Armand Calinescu, was shot dead in open street by pro-German guys for this overall attitude. What can be friendlier than that, for a small neutral country who could not afford to flex muscles like a "neutral" United States, for example.
Now, the part of the story less known : how Romania drifted to the Axis a year later. Every Western documentary remind how Red Army invaded Poland in September 1939 and later the Baltic states, but all magically "forget" that on June 26, 1940 Red Army occupied in one night a fifth of Romania. It was with no previous hostile political statement and with no declaration of war. There was no fight between the two sides in the last 16 years. The local Romanian troops, surprised and facing a whole motorized/armoured army, were not useful that night. Next night the king’s counsel decided to not declare war to Soviet Union. Soviet Union in that moment was a good friend of Germany. The Romanian politicians discovered that they bet on a system of alliances all collapsed: with France, Czechoslovakia and with Poland. Meanwhile Romania’s neighbours, Hungary and Bulgaria, bet on the right poker card: Germany. So Germany forced Romania into treaties to give land to her old friends from WWI. The alternative was annihilation. Having lost in the process a half of the territory, the morale in what was left of Romania was desperate.
But that was not enough to turn toward the Axis. The problem was that Stalin wanted more. He was elated by the easiness of his grabbing of a fifth of Romania. Now he had shown clear intention to advance to the line of the Carpathian Mountains. But suddenly his good friend Hitler became upset. If the Russians will go further, they will get too close to his dear Romanian oil. So suddenly Germany became the only defender, and a strong one, of the existing status quo for what was left of Romania. Romania turned toward Axis for protection, like a looted store owner asking protection to the Mob.
It was my impression that looting is the wrong word to use in that context. It was more in the nature of living off the land. Troops did that all through history. When their supplies are short they have to eat so they take the chicken, potato, or cow from the farmer to survive. Not because they have ill will towards the farmer. Still the farmer will suffer.
Looting tends to indicate a criminal activity for personal gain such as stealing jewelery, paintings, and other items of value in the civilian world but no particular war fighting value.
It is probably because being an international group we don't all speak English as well as a native speaker so misunderstandings sometimes happen, even between fine gentlemen like Mr. Florin and Mr. Strelets.
Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
i think the word is foraging. But then is just a civillised word for what you describe. wild animals are fair game. alot more small birds were trapped for food in old days.stick bait and rock, slingshot catapult etc.
however I saw this in my adventures in africa nad middle east it is still going on even close to major tourist spots eg carthage and greek islands. it is an opportune food and cooked quickly.equivalent of a candy, very little is wasted.i think most soldiers always forage and finds are not always wild but hungry soldiers are hard to argue with.Bonds were sometimes issued but i wonder how many percentage were claimed back into currency.put yourself in soldiers shoes then local farmers both have a need to live at those times irrespective of nationality or belief etc.
yes is difficul matter about romania they were caught up in between a bad situation. there were many swabian germans of decsent in the north who settled and brought their ciustomary lifestyles still seen today in villages in the region. so i understand the claim to help them etc.i did not know of the polish populace but we learn something new each day.
Romania was rich in roman times for mining and also
later had mines with qualities used in gunpowder productin which was a major ottoman interest.
slatina area if i recall rightly used by the russians after cetate retreat.