Forget Hitler's Holocaust - Evil Britain's pet Holocaust is just as horrible !

So you thought Hitler was the only sick bastard on the block huh? Guess again.. looks like those British are just as evil.

During the run-up to WWII, the British government formed the National Air Raid Precautions Animals Committee in 1939 to decide what to do with all their animals once war broke out. The committee's primary concern was food shortages made worse due to people feeding their pets, so to curtail this potential problem, they sent out a pamphlet called "Advice to Animal Owners" ... which came with an advertisement for a specific type of gun. You can see where this is going.

I'd love to post the picture of the pamphlet but I cant get my uploads to show for some reason. The picture and story is found here: www.cracked.com...

The pamphlet advised the population that if they could not send their pets into the countryside, "it really is kindest to have them destroyed".

How did the British population take this order? With protests across the Isles, surely? Not exactly. Within the course of a week, 750,000 family pets were "destroyed."

This is not even one big bad Hitler type dude going around killing all the puppies and kitties this is the British people themselves murdering in cold blood by shooting the pets ( Pets, mind you, animals people are supposed to Love) in the head with guns sold for this very purpose !!

Now, I don't wanna hear another word vilifying Hitler. To me, any human who would kill their pet in such manner is equal to Hitler !

The point is not to downplay Hitler. The point is to show just as Hitler was human and did evil things he wasn't special in that. Let's say there was one pet for every person. This means there were 750,000 sick in the head British people who were willing to murder their pet in cold blood. In contrast, How can we really say Hitler was any worse then these people? People don't like to think that way because it shows Hitler in a better light - but the point is to show these people were as bad as crazy, as evil as Hitler himself. No reason to single out Hitler as a monster when all the "normal" people have to do is look in the mirror and find the monster in themselves. I wonder how many who shot their pets are hypocrites, justifying their actions and not those of Hitler? Interesting.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Just for a bit of perspective; there was a WAR going on.

A WORLD WAR.

As for your Hitler comparison...what are you on about? These weren't cold, heartless murderers slaughtering millions without a second thought. These were most probably VERY POOR people who had to decide between their children and their dog, I'm a parent...easy decision. Not that my grubby face wouldn't be streaked with tears as I killed my trusty companion, but all wars have casualties. And my children need to eat.

Cracked.com? Seriously?!

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


The Brits in London were in the middle of a siege. It changes your perspectives. When it comes down to a time where you are facing an unknown amount of time with very limited resources, including and especially food, you have to do whatever you can to pool and conserve what you have left. In this case it included putting down the pets. If you ever face a time where you are facing starvation, you might do the same.

As cold as it sounds, my husband and I have actually had this discussion. Our three cats are either on their own or down if the SHTF. We cannot be responsible for them when we're not sure if we can be responsible for the three of us. Two of them have the full complement of claws and teeth and a chance at least, but the one who came to us fully declawed will have to be put down. It would be cruel to let him out on his own.

As much as we love them, we can't offer them more. In fact, it's the love that would keep them from becoming our first disaster meals.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


It was hardly in "cold blood" and it was a dire situation. You are twisting this out of all proportion to try and make some daft point.

There was rationing going on where people were limited in the amount of foodstuffs they could buy. This would be worked out in your ration book to be able to feed your family. It DID NOT include food for pets - this would be a choice left down to the family - as there was a finite amount of food going on.

As others have said, the NATION (not just London, there is more to the UK than one city) was under siege.

LiveForever8
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

As for your Hitler comparison...what are you on about? These weren't cold, heartless murderers slaughtering millions without a second thought.

Er.. how do you know? Seems to me murdering your beloved pet by order of the government is just as cold and heartless as Hitlers actions. No.. in many ways this is much worse than Hitler's holocaust. The government didn't want people to be humane and take care of their pets. They deemed pets do not deserve to live so they made the owners kill them. (I wonder how many children wound up eating their pets!) They turned all Britains citizens into murderers. That's worse.

Normal people do do things just as evil as Hitler and yet - we tend to think nothing of it and or forget it quickly. That's my point.

You may be right.. perhaps they were not cold and heartless.. just stupid.

BTW folks, I have nothing against the British. In fact I love them and have many friends from across the pond. I'd have posted the same thread if this happened in America or any where else.

JohnPhoenix
So you thought Hitler was the only sick bastard on the block huh? Guess again.. looks like those British are just as evil.

So just what did you want the poms to do with all their pets? Where would the food for them come from?

Cities in England under siege? War in Britain?

Guys... it was 1939. The only thing that the Brits did in 1939 was to DECLARE war on Germany over Poland. There wasnt anything serious going on... yet at least.

Only the Navy and the Royal Air Force fought the Germans from september to december 1939... oh yes of course and Chamberlain refuses Hitler's peace offer - which seems to not only would have saved many people's lives now it seems it may have saved many cats and dogs also.

What cities under siege and war and fire and brimstone lol... 1939.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

You've got a pamphet suggesting that they might want to do it.
That does not prove that anybody did.
You are blowing this up out of all proportion.

Anyway, you've got just enough food that EITHER your child OR your pet will be able to eat.
What's your choice? Which way do you play it?

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


G,day mate. ques. how do dogs and cats react when you let of fire crackers. they go crackers/nuts/troppo.
If we accept the above as fact. What do you think the reaction of the animals would be with 200 plus H111 medium German bombers dropping sticks of 500lb. bombs in your neighbor hood let alone your lounge room
To add from a personal point.
So, i'm out in the paddocks hunting and a tiger snake strikes/bites my dog. I am 2 miles from the homestead and i have no vit. k for the dog. You want me to let the dog die a very bloody painful death or should i shoot the dog.
Besides your event happened in WW2 a long time ago, come to think of it i dont remember anything about the poms killing approx 12.mil people in concentration camps. the Russians in
Moscow and several OTHER cities having no dogs or cats ate THEIR DEAD.
To finish on a funny aussie note. Do you realise that vegetarian is and old aboriginal word for LOUSY HUNTER. LOL

hellobruce

JohnPhoenix
So you thought Hitler was the only sick bastard on the block huh? Guess again.. looks like those British are just as evil.

So just what did you want the poms to do with all their pets? Where would the food for them come from?

edit on 1-1-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

This was a fear of the government - a fear. This happened before anyone starved due to the war. There was not at this time any children going hungry because the parents were feeding the pets instead - it simply didn't happen. These people were made to murder their pets for no good reason. It's Insanity.

Government: Oh btw, one day we might get short on food so if you want to have food for your kids, then kill your pets so at least they don't have to be fed!

Yeah.. that was a brilliant move. The author of that one should go straight to hell and be Hitlers life partner.

ive already decided to shoot my cat if the world goes under in possibly several different scenarios.
and i dont even have a family to feed.

i dont see the big deal. a cat is an animal. i may even have to eat her if it comes to it.

JohnPhoenix

LiveForever8
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

As for your Hitler comparison...what are you on about? These weren't cold, heartless murderers slaughtering millions without a second thought.

Er.. how do you know? Seems to me murdering your beloved pet by order of the government is just as cold and heartless as Hitlers actions. No.. in many ways this is much worse than Hitler's holocaust. The government didn't want people to be humane and take care of their pets. They deemed pets do not deserve to live so they made the owners kill them. (I wonder how many children wound up eating their pets!) They turned all Britains citizens into murderers. That's worse.

Normal people do do things just as evil as Hitler and yet - we tend to think nothing of it and or forget it quickly. That's my point.

You may be right.. perhaps they were not cold and heartless.. just stupid.

BTW folks, I have nothing against the British. In fact I love them and have many friends from across the pond. I'd have posted the same thread if this happened in America or any where else.

edit on 1-1-2014 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

So by your logic, it would have made more sense to let all of those animals die of starvation? I was expecting something FAR different when I clicked on this thread.

By the way, it was a government recommendation, not an order. If anything, it was the most humane thing that could have been done; these were domesticated animals that were not necessarily prepared to fend for themselves in the wild, and what do you think would have been done to a starving dog caught snacking on a dead human body? Yep, they would have been shot on the spot.

I'm sure a great many of those families (particularly the children) were absolutely brokenhearted to know that this was indeed the only true option for the situation.

Comparing this to Hitler's holocaust is silly at best.

Bisman
ive already decided to shoot my cat if the world goes under in possibly several different scenarios.
and i dont even have a family to feed.

i dont see the big deal. a cat is an animal. i may even have to eat her if it comes to it.

Really? A cat? Well if you owned a pig... or a cow... but a cat.

What a stupid survival resolution.

Seriously you're one weird example of a human being.

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


meat is meat. the only reason i wouldnt eat a person is out of respect. (though if my soccer team crash landed on a mountain, i just may)
but i dont respect a cat the same as a person. because its an animal. a resource that either entertains me as a pet, or feeds me when im starving to death.

FraternitasSaturni

Bisman
ive already decided to shoot my cat if the world goes under in possibly several different scenarios.
and i dont even have a family to feed.

i dont see the big deal. a cat is an animal. i may even have to eat her if it comes to it.

Really? A cat? Well if you owned a pig... or a cow... but a cat.

What a stupid survival resolution.

Seriously you're one weird example of a human being.

Any port in a storm, I suppose. Hell, 1 Cat = 4 drumsticks, right?

unless a cat is a good hunting tool. and brings me rats to eat.

but mine is a housecat. nothing but burdan when all food is gone. shes on a dinner plate baby

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

JohnPhoenix
No.. in many ways this is much worse than Hitler's holocaust.

"In many ways..."

Are you for real? Can you list these many ways?

JohnPhoenix
They deemed pets do not deserve to live so they made the owners kill them.

How did they make them do it? How?

JohnPhoenix
Normal people do do things just as evil as Hitler and yet - we tend to think nothing of it and or forget it quickly. That's my point.

Well, you have done a crappy job of doing that. Everything is WAY out of perspective.

JohnPhoenix
You may be right.. perhaps they were not cold and heartless.. just stupid.

Not stupid, scared. Scared that their children would starve to death. Fear can be a superb motivator, for better or for worse.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


No one was "ordered" to do anything. This was simply advice given. Get your pets out of the cities in case of wide-spread bombing/food shortages and if not, it really is kinder to euthanise them.

FraternitasSaturni
Cities in England under siege? War in Britain?

Guys... it was 1939. The only thing that the Brits did in 1939 was to DECLARE war on Germany over Poland. There wasnt anything serious going on... yet at least.

Only the Navy and the Royal Air Force fought the Germans from september to december 1939... oh yes of course and Chamberlain refuses Hitler's peace offer - which seems to not only would have saved many people's lives now it seems it may have saved many cats and dogs also.

What cities under siege and war and fire and brimstone lol... 1939.

Actually, the British Government knew from WW1 what would happen and that we'd be under siege from U-boats sinking shipping from the get-go. This was pre-emptive advice.

The Battle of Britain was only round the corner, in the Summer of 1940, where Britain fought for it's very survival and by that point, the U-boat campaign was well under-way.

During that same exact time period, people were also requested to evacuate their children from the cities. Nothing had happened by that point, but High Command knew it would so got the kids out before TSHTF. To be honest, I am bloody glad they did because in the space of a few months, we were getting pounded by the Germans.

This thread just seems like some half-baked attempt to try and second guess people with the benefit of 70 years hindsight. As it happens, the advice was spot on - within a year of it being issued, London would be ablaze.

Here is a BBC article on the same thing and actually explains it well. It also points out that the RSPCA and Royal Army Veterinary Corps tried to persuade people not to follow the advice. It was not a Government order in the slightest and to paint it as so is disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I guess it comes down to your perspective.

Which life is more important - an animal's or a human being's?

The British Government felt that the lives of its citizens were more important to try to preserve than the lives of the pets they had. The Government made calculations and felt that they could better ensure the lives of their citizens through rationing if they did not ration food for the preservation of the pets.

They recommended that the people not try to further ration their food down to provide for their pets because there was already going to be little enough.

Then there was the shelter policy. They tried to fit as many as possible into about 15 miles of underground tubes for example. Imagine now trying to crowd in pets as well ... in a city of London's size and population.

You also had 250,000 families left without homes in just the early phase of the Blitz campaign.

... But they should have tried to provide for the pets in London and other cities being bombed daily, relentlessly ...