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.
Question. Why is it that only German WWII, and communist Korean war sets say have surrendering poses. Yes a lot of troops surrendered but many Allied troops in WWII and the Korean war surrendered.
you're right, there's only a handful of surrendering poses period. and they're mostly ww2 sets by matchbox, and airfix. and now imex does it. the matchbox british 8th army set is the only one i know of that featured a surrendering pose for allies. but then again there are always conversion possibilities with almost any figure raising his rifle over his head. i don't think it was intentional, as in only the germans surrender or anything like that. then again, you never know.
Poor blighter is ungentlemanly bound and gagged.Whats with this barbarosity Strelets ? No way to treat an Ossifer of His Majestys finest.
In the Airfix WWI runs, which I belive were among their earliest, I believe the only army with surrendering figures is the German. The French set does have a couple of "nice" casualty figures.
Well I guess there is an element of politics in this. Of course all armies have had soldiers surrender at times, but since Airfix, Imex and Matchbox are all British or American they might be more inclined to have the opposition surrender than their own. They might even fear some extremely paranoid American complaining about a US servicemen surrendering to the 'commies' in Korea!
Personally I think a set of 12 or 15 poses cannot afford a surrendering pose, but one is fine in Matchbox or Strelets boxes with large numbers of poses.
Are there any WW2 Italian figures running away?
Maybe strelets could make a mini set of them
Enrico will not like that post...
There's also a surrendering pose in the Revell WWII Australian Infantry, which is natural since I believe they were designed for the Crete campaign. BTW, when did "hands-up" become a common indication of surrender? Wasn't sticking your musket in the ground a symbol of surrender at one time? Or holding it over your head? Anyone know how forms of surrender have changed over the years?
to be fair to the WW2 italian infantryman, he was poorly equipped and supplied, indifferently officered, and as the war progressed, he probably had doubts about wether he was fighting for the right side after all. there was not the same patriotism that motivated the troops of the ww1 islonzo battles, (their losses were appalling, but they still fought bravely). if a soldier's heart is not in a fight, his battle performance will reflect that. it's something Napoleon understood, but maybe not Mussolini. if given the choice of surrendering to british or americans or fighting for buffoons like mussolini or a monster like hitler, which would you do?
Hi Andy Hart,
Interesting question! A quick search of Wikipedia Encyclopedia under "Surrender (Military)" will quickly give you a link for "White Flag" which mentions some of the origins of raising hands (Roman shields) as follows ...
The first mention of the usage of white flags to surrender is made during from the Eastern Han dynasty (A.D 25-220). In the Roman Empire, the historian Cornelius Tacitus mentions a white flag of surrender in A.D. 109. Before that time, Roman armies would surrender by holding their shields above their heads. The usage of the white flag has since spread worldwide."
As an aside, did you know that the greeting of "hand-shaking" got it's start in mideaval times in Europe. When two strangers met on a road, they would hold out their hands and hold each others while they talked, so that neither one could pull his sword or knife and attack the other, until they were comfortable they were not enemies. Today, many westerners shake thier right hands in a gesture of friendship, like a neutral white flag, or a kind of non-violence.
Asians bowed, especially in China and Japan, to avoid eye contact, where in feudal times if you looked someone with seniority (such as an Emperor or Samurai) in the eyes, it was considered aggresive behavior and could result in your death on the spot.
Obviously there is more to the above, but it is a great question and Happy Collecting!
No comment... Madpenn and Donald replied correctly.
Anyway I can't speak for (or against) peoples who lived in my country 60 years ago! Nor anyone should IMHO...
We can agree or not with their choices but we should not judge them, simply becouse the way WE feel the life and the relationships between peoples and counties is very much different!
Hope I explained well my mind
I'm sure Brian didn't really mean to offend.
I agree with your post.
Let's drop this topic.
Whenever anyone makes 'Italian running away' jokes, I'm reminded of the 2,800 Italians on an Aegean Island who held out against the Germans despite being poorly equipped & heavily outnumbered.
The survivors were executed & all the bodies burnt by the Nazis.
Indeed, I believe 40,000 Italian soldiers were killed after Mussolini was deposed & they changed sides.
If the Italians performed poorly in WW2, their leadership & allies provide the motivation.
The Folgore Division in particular fought to the death for the German Afrika Korps.Who even Rommel admired them for their ultimate bravery and loyalty.
about surendering poses, the revell Imperial troops has a slodier who keeps his msuket above his head. Adn what about the soldier rasing his musket with one hand in the Italeri AWI american infantry set? (or maybe he's drunk ;) )
One of the 18th-century surrender conventions was to reverse arms - there are AWI stories of Americans using this as a ploy to get closer before opening fire...
Pretty much all wars have had their significant horror and heroic sides to the victors and losers.Conditional surrender /unconditional surrender tried to maintain some civility between both sides. The victor if he wasnt careful would be left with an army to feed and transport and shelter and provide security and medical support for.
Sometimes it was in the interest of both sides to let the losers walk away.
A white flag didnt neccessarily mean surrender. It signified the wish to ceasefire/short term truce and parlez terms for collecting wounded and burying dead.
I've always wondered about that Imperial Infantry figure. He could either be surrendering or defending himself from a mounted asailant. It is interesting to note that there are almost no surrendering figures before 1914, yet quite alot after it. Presumably surrendering was as common before the 20th century as during it, dont you think?
Interesting question, Jon.
To surrender in Ancient times, if allowed, might mean slavery or human sacrifice later.
Similarly, surrender during the Crusades might mean the same. And common soldiers met short shift during many a medieval conflict.
Surrender usually wasn't an option in the Colonial wars. Massacre of prisoners was the norm (on both sides!)
During the Seven Years War captured soldiers were induced (even tortured) to change sides.
There are examples of killing prisoners in the Nap Wars....the Turks, the Spanish Guerillas & the Russian cossacks.
Being a PW doesn't become anywhere near being a safe option until after the Geneva Convention....& not neccesarily then. Look at the fate of Russians in Nazi hands & vice versa or prisoners of the Imperial Japanese.
Ah but, in the 18th century it was very common for the entire force to surrender. Think of the many seiges of the 1700s. The garrison would receive the "honours of war" and march away to fight another day. Professional soldiers were too valuable to waste. They were "exchanged" through an elaborate system of rules with what we would see almost as umpires. War gamers would have loved it.
It wasn't until the AWI that the modern prison camp was invented after the Convention Army of General Burgoyne was seized in violation of the "convention" (the term surrender was avoided). The British faced the problem of how to treat "rebels". The military museum at Edinburgh Castle has a really good exhibit on this topic. "Rebel" and French prisoners were kept in the castle in the AWI.
In the Napoleonic wars and the wars of the 19th century there were again many prison camps. During the American Civil war the status of prisoners was again under question as one side did not recognize the nationhood of the other. The condiditions on both sides were terrible, exemplified by Andersonville in Georgia. One might have expected better from fellow countrymen but civil wars often bring out the worst in people.
In both the AWI and the ACW the "rebels" had an advantage on POW treatment in that during the early days of the conflict they were successful in obtaining a number of POWs that could be held as hostages, thus insuring that their own POWs would be treated as POWs rather than as traitors.
I think that prison camps in America preceded Burgoyne's surrender. A great many American POWs were kept in hulks in NY harbor, and the Americans kept a fair number of Brits and their supporters in various facilities throughout the country. As for the ACW, the conditions on both sides, while never ideal, deteriorated significantly after Grant stopped the POW exchanges.
It was just a joke I think all Nations have had there moments which they would rather forget, for me the British surrendering to a much smaller Japanese force at Singapore springs to mind.
Hope there's no hard feelings Brian
No problem, Brian...
As I wrote I don't feel resposable for what italians did years before my birht! And I'm not just talking about the last war: I coud go back to the colonial wars too, and the piedmontese "invasion" of southern Italy, down to romans and etruscans!!
There is an italian "core" in all the people who lived this country in the past, but I don't agree with anything they did of course; they're not "me" so I don't feel hungry if someone offends them.
Useless to say that that anyone should understand that later italians are different from the former... just like in any country!!