57 replies to this topic

[Saeble]

I know its a long standing unwritten rule that LEGO does not create anything related to war either current or from recent times and I'm sure there is atleast one thread on this topic somewhere in the crypts mouldering away, however...

...given how long ago World War Two was, isn't it about time that this period is thrown open for Offical LEGO sets ? There is basically nobody left who has any real first hand knowledge of the period and anyone who does knows anything about it, is not on a first hand knowledge basis.

I think we can safely start building with due respect to those that fought in that war and not let this period fade away completely.

I am heartened by the release of the set 7292 which I've christened the 'Notsquito' because it is for all intents and purposes, a Mosquito Fighter/Bomber in civvy clothing. If I thought I could get away with it, I'd build a copy of it in greens and brown and do it properly as a Cuusoo.

War is awful, most assuredly, however it has in the past driven huge leaps in many field of human endeavour to greater heights, Medicine, Engineering and many others owe a huge debt to war for fantastic achievements. We have plenty of sets with Canon's and black powder guns, I think its high time we moved into the 20th century...

I for one am dying to build some of the awesome things we humans built to fight each other in the second world war.

[BrickG]

I'm usually one of the last to recommend censorship in Lego but...  just no.

It's not only about respect or anything.  It's also about making stuff fun that shouldn't be IMO.  First off you'd need Nazis.  And what, are you going to have holocaust sets?  "Jew Gas Chamber", "Japanese Internment Camp", blablabla...

I don't think we should romanticize WWII to small children.  Too much messed up crap happened there.  And unlike in fiction it ACTUALLY happened.  And imagine kids trying to collect things like a Hitler minifigure :P.



I have no problem with people who are interested in history and that war.  I have a good friend who is heavily into war reenactments. But do they belong in Lego?  I don't think so.  If I had to see military in Lego let it be G.I.Joe or something.  Or generalized military sets at the most (like a US Tank with a few minifigures fighting nobody)...





I just don't like the idea of putting REAL killing and stuff, even if it's against Nazis, into a children's toy.

[Scorpiox]

I'm sorry, but there are serious numbers of people who fought in/experianced the Second World War still alive. My own Grandmother was a child during the conflict, and still holds strong views of what it was like to live in the war. I imagine that she'd be rather upset that young children were being raised on building toys of the quite frankly horrible war. The key thing with LEGO's policy on guns and war, is that the themes are presented in a fictional and light-hearted fashion, so any sets based on an acutally war with real weapons and vehicles is very far-out. Plus, I think that you'll find that TLG has never actually released versions of any real-life battle. Yes, Ninjas and their role in Imperial Japan did exist, but I'm pretty sure that they never had flying machines or fought skeletons. Any sort of real violence is diluted with 'goodies-vs-baddies' type childishness, which makes is okay to present to young children.

World War Two, however, is very real. But no matter how much the truth is changed to appear more child-friendly, it is still World War Two, and many people would feel angered at LEGO for raising this past issue in the form of plastic toys. As much as I'd like a LEGO Panzer III to build myself, I certainly wouldn't want any child of mine running over little LEGO Wehrmacht troopers with a British Army artillery piece. I know that I'm not the only one thinking like this, so it isn't at all practical to ask for TLG to produce LEGO: WW2 sets.

[PocasNuckie]

I still fail to see what's the difference between WW2 and WW1. Yes, because the Sopwith Camel and the older Red Baron were for a fact , WWI airplanes.

[TheBoyWonder]

Saeble, on 10 September 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

...given how long ago World War Two was, isn't it about time that this period is thrown open for Offical LEGO sets ? There is basically nobody left who has any real first hand knowledge of the period and anyone who does knows anything about it, is not on a first hand knowledge basis.

I think we can safely start building with due respect to those that fought in that war and not let this period fade away completely.

War is awful, most assuredly, however it has in the past driven huge leaps in many field of human endeavour to greater heights, Medicine, Engineering and many others owe a huge debt to war for fantastic achievements. We have plenty of sets with Canon's and black powder guns, I think its high time we moved into the 20th century...

I for one am dying to build some of the awesome things we humans built to fight each other in the second world war.

I don't know what country your from, but Im leaning towards America. I know many people like Scorpiox who either fought in the war or were in the blitz. They would be disgusted with Lego for doing something like this. Cannons and black powder guns are not nearly as modern.  As for the final statement, I feel that is quite controversial, and as for me I am disgraced, as many pf my family died in the blitz.

As for the post about WW1 and WW2, WW1 was plain war. WW2 was racial hatred, and opression combined into one and manifested as war.

Can this thread be closed mods?

[fred67]

TheBoyWonder, on 10 September 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

As for the post about WW1 and WW2, WW1 was plain war. WW2 was racial hatred, and opression combined into one and manifested as war.

Can this thread be closed mods?

While I completely agree with you, I don't know why it can't be open for discussion.

Perhaps the criteria should be if anyone is left who was affected by the war, but that wouldn't help, there's a lot of older people out there who lost parents in WWI still out there, too... but then they didn't make "war" sets, they made a model of interesting (for the time) technology; something iconic.  I don't know what iconic thing they could make from WWII.  People would argue about tanks and planes (the jet era being ushered in), but I don't think there's a single iconic technology (besides the atom bomb) that makes me think of WWII.

Likewise, the really interesting models are more recent.  The SR-71 Blackbird is as interesting as the Sopwith Camel, but it represents the cold war... too recent.

No wars are good - neither are pirates, so I don't know how TLG decides what's acceptable or not.

Still, as long as the discussion is civil, I don't see why it needs to be closed.

[TheBoyWonder]

fred67, on 10 September 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

While I completely agree with you, I don't know why it can't be open for discussion.

Perhaps the criteria should be if anyone is left who was affected by the war, but that wouldn't help, there's a lot of older people out there who lost parents in WWI still out there, too... but then they didn't make "war" sets, they made a model of interesting (for the time) technology; something iconic.  I don't know what iconic thing they could make from WWII.  People would argue about tanks and planes (the jet era being ushered in), but I don't think there's a single iconic technology (besides the atom bomb) that makes me think of WWII.

Likewise, the really interesting models are more recent.  The SR-71 Blackbird is as interesting as the Sopwith Camel, but it represents the cold war... too recent.

No wars are good - neither are pirates, so I don't know how TLG decides what's acceptable or not.

Still, as long as the discussion is civil, I don't see why it needs to be closed.

The reason for closing is, Lego would not make sets based on WW2 as the violence was civilian based. You can release a panzer as just a tank, but people will realize its a WWII tank. The sets would be too controversial, too modern and, would not sell to people who know victims of WWII.

[charlieboy]

Saeble, on 10 September 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

...given how long ago World War Two was, isn't it about time that this period is thrown open for Offical LEGO sets ? There is basically nobody left who has any real first hand knowledge of the period and anyone who does knows anything about it, is not on a first hand knowledge basis.

What planet are you on? I have relatives that lived through the war and can describe in vivid detail those horrendous  years living in England. For you to say there is basically nobody left with first hand knowledge of that time is deeply offensive and disrespectful and shows how very ignorant you are.


As for having Lego sets from that time period, the vehicles would be ok I think but as someone has already said, would you want your kids playing with a Hitler minifig? I think not.

[BrickG]

I think the issue is all about the kids.  There's nothing wrong with the theme when you don't consider them.  I have no problem with those WWII custom Lego.  

That said, I'd probably make a Hitler minifigure myself just so I can put him in a little scene with the Lego T-Rex eating him and ripping him apart.   But I'm not a kid.

[TheBoyWonder]

BrickG, on 10 September 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

I think the issue is all about the kids.  There's nothing wrong with the theme when you don't consider them.  I have no problem with those WWII custom Lego.  

That said, I'd probably make a Hitler minifigure myself just so I can put him in a little scene with the Lego T-Rex eating him and ripping him apart.   But I'm not a kid.

The fact is. LEGO IS AIMED AT KIDS.

[Scorpiox]

fred67, on 10 September 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Perhaps the criteria should be if anyone is left who was affected by the war, but that wouldn't help, there's a lot of older people out there who lost parents in WWI still out there, too... but then they didn't make "war" sets, they made a model of interesting (for the time) technology; something iconic.  I don't know what iconic thing they could make from WWII.  People would argue about tanks and planes (the jet era being ushered in), but I don't think there's a single iconic technology (besides the atom bomb) that makes me think of WWII.

Likewise, the really interesting models are more recent.  The SR-71 Blackbird is as interesting as the Sopwith Camel, but it represents the cold war... too recent.

No wars are good - neither are pirates, so I don't know how TLG decides what's acceptable or not.

Still, as long as the discussion is civil, I don't see why it needs to be closed.

The criteria of having no remaining people who experianced or were affected conflict doesn't make it okay to make sets of something. LEGO Zulu warriors being cut down by Maxim guns anyone? I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Sopwith Camel however, as the focus of the set is on the aircraft itself as a machine, not at all on the war in which it featured. For example, in the Indiana Jones KOTCS sets, Soviet troops appeared here and there, but that doesn't mean that LEGO was producing Cold War sets.  

On the other hand, I would be perfectly happy to see some interesting models from 1940s Britain that were used in the war, so long as the vehicle or building was the centre piece of the set, not any battles. Cold War, though is FAR too recent, as many of the grievences and disagreements that were the basis of the Cold War still exist in the modern world. I doubt that many nations would be particularly pleased to see LEGO produce modern USAF equipment.

Pirates and other fantastical battles are fine, as these occurred hundreds of years ago, and the LEGO sets aren't accuarate depictions of any real-life war or even nation. That's the key point, plus, the Pirates line isn't exactly gritty; everyone is smiling, dancing around with cutlasses on desert islands with snappy crocodiles.

TheBoyWonder, on 10 September 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

The fact is. LEGO IS AIMED AT KIDS.

Common sense from TBW here. As much as we adults all want LEGO Sherman mineclearers, we're only less than half the market. LEGO is predominantly a child's toy, we're just adults who like to buy it.

[Hrw-Amen]

Well my mother lived through WWII and is still very much alive, I am not sure she would appreciate people saying otherwise!

However in spite of living through it and knowing the horrors of it, that did not stop her and my father buying me model tanks and soldiers when I was a young kid and encouraging me to join a wargaming club where WWII & WWI were recreated on the table top each and every week.

However a gaming club and model kits I do feel are slightly different to LEGO. I know some people use LEGO to make buildings and other stuff for wargames (And I can vouch for how effective it can be.) and yes I would probably like to buy a panzer III or a Tiger or even a Sherman LEGO tank if they made them, but as a toy I am not sure it would be a good move. I am not sure I can really justify why it would not be seeing as lots of other manufacturers do make modern war models and get away with it and even sell loads (And presumably make money?) but somehow it just does not seem like it would be right for LEGO to do it. Maybe it is that we have all grown up with the 'nice friendly' feel of LEGO, I don't know?

Perhaps if they wanted to make something from that era to appeal to older members of the community it should be something that was ground breaking for the time. It could be military but maybe not something involved in the war to great degree. Perhaps an early helicopter or maybe a plane like the Gloucester Meteor or something? Other than that I think it should be left at least for now to those who like to make MOCs for themselves.

However I don't think banning discussion is the way to go as there are perhaps some things from the time, technological breakthroughs that could make good future sets and as time goes on and stuff retreats into history it may become usable eventually in a watered down theme. You never know in a hundred years or so LEGO WWII could seem no more controversial than LEGO Pirates does now. Galaxy Patrol on the other hand, well they may turn out to be real bad guys, but we will have to let history be the judge of that.

[TheBoyWonder]

Scorpiox, on 10 September 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

The criteria of having no remaining people who experianced or were affected conflict doesn't make it okay to make sets of something. LEGO Zulu warriors being cut down by Maxim guns anyone? I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Sopwith Camel however, as the focus of the set is on the aircraft itself as a machine, not at all on the war in which it featured. For example, in the Indiana Jones KOTCS sets, Soviet troops appeared here and there, but that doesn't mean that LEGO was producing Cold War sets.  

On the other hand, I would be perfectly happy to see some interesting models from 1940s Britain that were used in the war, so long as the vehicle or building was the centre piece of the set, not any battles. Cold War, though is FAR too recent, as many of the grievences and disagreements that were the basis of the Cold War still exist in the modern world. I doubt that many nations would be particularly pleased to see LEGO produce modern USAF equipment.

Pirates and other fantastical battles are fine, as these occurred hundreds of years ago, and the LEGO sets aren't accuarate depictions of any real-life war or even nation. That's the key point, plus, the Pirates line isn't exactly gritty; everyone is smiling, dancing around with cutlasses on desert islands with snappy crocodiles.



Common sense from TBW here. As much as we adults all want LEGO Sherman mineclearers, we're only less than half the market. LEGO is predominantly a child's toy, we're just adults who like to buy it.

The bit in bold sums it up. Lego war is unrealistic, and the WW1 planes have no minifigures.

[Weil]

First off, it is completely untrue to say 'There is basically nobody left who has any real first hand knowledge of the period'. The worlds population of people over say 80 is not what I would describe as 'basically nobody'. I don't think that is really what's important though, the reason LEGO won't make WWII sets is because there are real people who will be designated goodies and baddies. The German and Axis powers will be the baddies and the Alliance powers will be the goodies. For kids the distinction between goodies and baddies is pretty clear cut which means for the sets to appeal to children every German soldier must be a baddie which is clearly a poor ideology to adopt. While I like just about everyone else will clearly have no problem saying The Nazis were a force for bad I, like I hope most other people, would never make the claim that every German soldier from WWII was evil. LEGO has no business telling children who the goodies and baddies of history are. Furthermore the history of WWII would be expected to be the role playing stories of the sets. This pushes children into playing out stories full of violence and misery.

For comparison lets look at the Castle and Pirate lines. Firstly they did happen considerably further in the past and their history spans many more years. That put aside LEGO do not have the factions portraying real nations or groups of people. In the Castle line there is no British and French, no Crusaders, no Holy Roman Empire. So LEGO is completely at will to decide the Dragon Knights are the baddies because they represent no particular group of people. The next point is, is that children are not pushed into playing out any famous battles or atrocities that occurred because the period is so vast, they can do whatever they want without thinking it stupid. In the Pirates line there are Soldiers and Pirates but none represent a particular nation, it is also not even clear who the goodies and baddies are - the children can decide who they want to win without worrying about history or ethics.

Finally all kids know that Pirates and Knights don't exist anymore so are never put under concern. Children aren't seriously worried about a Knight charging them down on the way to school or a Pirate coming and stealing their lunch. The armies of WWII hold too much similarity to the armies of today (tanks, guns, planes) to make them aware and possibly fearful of events in the world today. To a child (who may have relatives or family friends in the armed forces) WWII sets would be a much stronger reminder of the consequences of war.

As for sets like the Sopwith Camel yes construction sets for older kids without strong role playing elements are starting to sneak in from more modern history. This is a possibility that may develop. Where as I can never in my lifetime envisage a WWII theme I could see LEGO making a large construction set of a tank without minifigures and not strongly geared towards role play aimed at 14+ years. In fact we have already seen some sort of tank in the Alien Invasion Line (Though different enough to real tanks and not fighting against humans). LEGO may even in time make a theme based around say red soldiers against blue soldiers in tanks, helicopters etc but the soldiers and vehicles would have a fantasy or futuristic spin to differentiate from the real world.

As a closing point while I don't think there will ever be a WWII theme I don't see any point to close this thread. After all, the reasons for not shutting down free speech when it offers no real harm is something you would hope the world learned in part as a result of WWII.

[BrickG]

Since people are almost universally against this let us go to the next issue.

Lego Breaking Bad.  Meth Labs.  Blue Meth.  Walter White.  Lego set for 2013?  




What kid doesn't want meth?

[fred67]

BrickG, on 10 September 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Lego Breaking Bad.  Meth Labs.  Blue Meth.  Walter White.  Lego set for 2013?  

Need something to pass the time between ridiculous 8 episode seasons!

[Saint]

First of : I like warthimgs, a lot. I don't think LEGO should make WWII stuff , period. Simple as that. If you want WWII stuff , make it yourselfs , don't go bother LEGO with it.

Okey, that last bit is a bit short through the bend, because I look at several brands and find the models there that LEGO don't want to build, and I keep thinking "Wow, thus should be rock solid if LEGO had this model or coulor." Even if LEGO only made stuff that is non-violent ( think Friends ) some-one is going to think up "tank girl" or "fabu-tank" with parts that on first look won't lend themselfs for war stuff.

Personaly I can see that a child friendly company like LEGO will never ! make tanks of WWII and I hope not, because I still want that "innocence" when I buy a set, it's out of their control what we ( AFOL'S ) do with them.

Let Brickmania do their magic with LEGO, and let brickarms and brickforge do theirs. ( and to all I forgot to mention)  

LEGO is in a big part not mend to be realistic I guess, it's what we make of it.



Grtz Saint

[Capt.JohnPaul]

All of us on here, (probably) would love to see a model Panzer, or armies. But as said already, you need good guys and bad guys. Good guys = America, Britain, Russia, France, etc. For bad guys, they wouldn't put "Nazi" that would cause outrage. They won't call them Germans, I hate it when I get called a Nazi for being part German.

It's just not suitable for kids. Too much blood an guts.

[Saeble]

well, I'd say the pot is well and truly stirred, (though this was NOT my direct intention).

I'm Australian, so please pack away your arsenal of anti-Yank weapons. (:P) I have English relatives/friends with long, long direct but distant memories of the Blitz, I think most of them would agree that it's long since done and dusted. If anyone is seriously offended I'd suggest some counselling is in order, or perhaps talking to thier Pastor. If we wait for every single person with any sort of memories of the horrors of WW2, we'll lose all contact with the subject, Wiki notwithstanding. In fact one of them in particular would be first in line to buy a Spitfire or a Mosquito. Those thundering Merlins tend to leave very deep and positive memories. Perhaps these sets should be limited to UCS sets and if sensitivities are still as high as some members of this board would imply, perhaps release them into very limited markets and let the bricklink underground railroad put the sets into the hands of the wowserish folk in the UK/Germany. The market is there and LEGO desperately needs every shekel it can lay its hands on if my 'inside source' can be relied upon. The friends system/themes will only go so far, though I really do welcome the loss of the vaguely misoginist undertones LEGO has always had, it wont be enough to stem the tide. The huge raft of military fans is effectively untapped aside from a few non-LEGO attempts and even those have been American fighters etc. If LEGO chooses a bolder approach and moves into WW2 stuff, then they may have a chance of surviving. I would much rather have LEGO with a 'gentler and as neutral as possible WW2 theme', than no LEGO at all.

The only other really valid perspective here the one about it being too gritty and 'real'... well fine, make 'em UCS and those objections pretty much vanish into the 16+ stratosphere. Kids grow up these days, faster than many of us are comfortable with. I for one see little value in censorship, esp about topics which impact thier history. A child who grows up in cotton wool grows up soft. Pretending it didn't happen is the first step down a very dark and dangerous road. Ok so kids should not be exposed to war and all the other negative stuff until they are old enough to handle it but having that decision made for the State or by Corporate interests is folly. I say let there be UCS WW2 sets and let the market sort it out. Helicopter parents can fly off somewhere pretty full of rainbows and Unicorns and candy floss. The rest of us would like the choice to expose our kids to the truth, no matter how grim or gritty it may be.

None have addressed the positives I mentioned. Technologies not directly related to killing people advanced in huge leaps thanks chiefly to the war for one small isolated example, service ceilings on aircraft climbed steeply during the war. Even the really grim business of the Nazi concentration camps had thier abysmal upsides in terms of medical research on the Jewish 'non-people'.

In any case, that's not the real issue. The focus should be on the advances we all made under the auspices of war. The jet engine for example. The steam turbine in ships is another. If the LEGO conscience needs to be assuaged, then make it very clear that the models are all about the technology, perhaps even going to the extent of creating a Merlin Engine Technic kit and perhaps a Jumo Jet engine and let the buyer decide if it ends up in Lancaster or some other warbird. With the advent of Cuusoo and and the myriad of other constructor assemblages, I'm sure we could come to sone sort of compromise. LEGO is all about teaching kids about a myriad of things, we shouldn't sugar coat the bad parts. In short, I don't see why we have any right to project our prejudices onto our kids, nor do I think anyone else has the right to push those same prejudices.

[BrickG]

Saeble, on 11 September 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

well, I'd say the pot is well and truly stirred, (though this was NOT my direct intention).

I'm Australian, so please pack away your arsenal of anti-Yank weapons. (:P) I have English relatives/friends with long, long direct but distant memories of the Blitz, I think most of them would agree that it's long since done and dusted. If anyone is seriously offended I'd suggest some counselling is in order, or perhaps talking to thier Pastor. If we wait for every single person with any sort of memories of the horrors of WW2, we'll lose all contact with the subject, Wiki notwithstanding. In fact one of them in particular would be first in line to buy a Spitfire or a Mosquito. Those thundering Merlins tend to leave very deep and positive memories. Perhaps these sets should be limited to UCS sets and if sensitivities are still as high as some members of this board would imply, perhaps release them into very limited markets and let the bricklink underground railroad put the sets into the hands of the wowserish folk in the UK/Germany. The market is there and LEGO desperately needs every shekel it can lay its hands on if my 'inside source' can be relied upon. The friends system/themes will only go so far, though I really do welcome the loss of the vaguely misoginist undertones LEGO has always had, it wont be enough to stem the tide. The huge raft of military fans is effectively untapped aside from a few non-LEGO attempts and even those have been American fighters etc. If LEGO chooses a bolder approach and moves into WW2 stuff, then they may have a chance of surviving. I would much rather have LEGO with a 'gentler and as neutral as possible WW2 theme', than no LEGO at all.

The only other really valid perspective here the one about it being too gritty and 'real'... well fine, make 'em UCS and those objections pretty much vanish into the 16+ stratosphere. Kids grow up these days, faster than many of us are comfortable with. I for one see little value in censorship, esp about topics which impact thier history. A child who grows up in cotton wool grows up soft. Pretending it didn't happen is the first step down a very dark and dangerous road. Ok so kids should not be exposed to war and all the other negative stuff until they are old enough to handle it but having that decision made for the State or by Corporate interests is folly. I say let there be UCS WW2 sets and let the market sort it out. Helicopter parents can fly off somewhere pretty full of rainbows and Unicorns and candy floss. The rest of us would like the choice to expose our kids to the truth, no matter how grim or gritty it may be.

None have addressed the positives I mentioned. Technologies not directly related to killing people advanced in huge leaps thanks chiefly to the war for one small isolated example, service ceilings on aircraft climbed steeply during the war. Even the really grim business of the Nazi concentration camps had thier abysmal upsides in terms of medical research on the Jewish 'non-people'.

In any case, that's not the real issue. The focus should be on the advances we all made under the auspices of war. The jet engine for example. The steam turbine in ships is another. If the LEGO conscience needs to be assuaged, then make it very clear that the models are all about the technology, perhaps even going to the extent of creating a Merlin Engine Technic kit and perhaps a Jumo Jet engine and let the buyer decide if it ends up in Lancaster or some other warbird. With the advent of Cuusoo and and the myriad of other constructor assemblages, I'm sure we could come to sone sort of compromise. LEGO is all about teaching kids about a myriad of things, we shouldn't sugar coat the bad parts. In short, I don't see why we have any right to project our prejudices onto our kids, nor do I think anyone else has the right to push those same prejudices.

This isn't censoring history.  Like most kids I was well aware of the crap that happened.  Holocaust and stuff.  I knew America used to be involved in slavery probably before I even went to school.  We're not censoring it.  We're not denying it.  Such an argument is irrelevant because nobody is doing that.

What we're doing is not wanting to associate that kind of stuff with "play".  Some kids will know a lot about history at an early age.  That doesn't mean they have to have a Hitler action figure.  Associating such stuff with "play" risks decensitizing the whole thing to a child's play thing and giving a weird view to a child who now associates stuff like Japanese internment camps with play time.
When it's fictional it's easier to stay separate, respectful and all that jazz because it doesn't matter.  WWII matters.


Nobody is pretending stuff didn't happen.  There's no dark and dangerous road because nobody is suggesting we say the Holocaust didn't happen or anything like that.  We're just not mixing real life tragedies with "play" for kids.  I'm sure some kids could handle it and know the difference but not all.

Again, it's not about not exposing kids to truths.  You can still give history leasons.  It's about not making it something kids can play with.


Nobody is addressing the positives you mention because I don't see any.  And the negatives you mention are making wild assumptions like denying history.


And mentioning positives to come out of stuff like experimenting on Jewish people, that's just dumb.  Technically they could and probably are there.  But using it in an argument FOR Legos based on WWII illustraits perfectly why it shouldn't happen because then kids might say things equally as stupid and incensitive as that (keep facts like that in the books).  And if you're an adult what chance do many kids have?


And you can't possibly think that just by shifting focus away from the horrible things that happened in the war to advancements means anything?  Well I guess you can think that since apparently focusing on medical advancements brought on by the torture and killing of Jewish people is appropriate FOR KIDS to play around with.  Wut?

Edited by BrickG, 11 September 2012 - 06:45 AM.

[lightningtiger]

Denmark was caught up heavily in WWII, so I guess Lego's idea is to reject mid-20th century warfare (unless a license is involved like Indiana Jones). Possibly the family that controls Lego saw those days as their saddest being that Denmark boarders onto Poland where many people were treated like cattle and led to their worse possible fate....death.
Perhaps it's in the schools where such things should be left to be taught and explained to children so they can understand it fully. I guess those into Lego-ised modern warfare machines can MOC them or wait for a license theme to have similar and modify them.

[Peppermint_M]

This always come up doesn't it?

Denmrak and it's neighbours were heavily involved, there is still a lot of hurt from these scarring conflicts and even physical reminders dotted across the landscape, from clearly traceable trenchlines to unexploded bombs turned up during construction work. To "trivialise" such a conflict with children's toys from such a family friendly company as LEGO would do more harm to the brand than the money they'd make from selling the sets.

Yes, the Sopwith and the Red Baron are warplanes from a terrible conflict but they are also presented as a display piece, marketed at expert builders and hobbyists. Maybe one day some of the iconic planes of WWII will be made but right now it seems very unlikely. There are still no official tanks and there are many who think it is bad enough that some themes have anything called a Tank in the setlist...

I'll be the first to admit, I love the planes, the uniforms, the entire era but the underlying reasons, the terrible truths? These are awful and should never be recalled in toys.

[VMLN8R]

I think there's better things Lego could be making than recreating killing machines, regardless of their age. Rather than badgering Lego to make stuff that you want, why not make it yourself?

Related discussion (silly premise included!)

[Alywin]

For your information,  in  2011,  TLG did formally set up its brand guidelines for weapons and violence , as seen from its Progress Report 2011 which can be found from its website. Below is the extract.

[Faefrost]

Yeah I am sorry to say that it is to soon. Just look at some of the rhetoric coming from Greece these days regarding Germany. The wounds are still to fresh, and playing them up still drives modern conflicts. Notice that Lego's aversion to conflicts of this nature is also not limited to simply WW2 or even "modern conflicts". As an example Lego easily has all the pieces it needs in place for an American Civil War era theme. The Blue and the Grey. Visually very striking. They have done sets that dance around the whole subject (Fort Legorado anyone? A post civil war opening of the west.) But the actual subject of the war itself is still not appropriate to their goals. And we can respect that.