Casualties of war

[Jimbuna]

This is the first I knew of this and to be quite honest I find it nothing short of distressing

At the beginning of World War II, a government pamphlet led to a massive cull of British pets. As many as 750,000 British pets were killed in just one week. This little-discussed moment of panic is explored in a new book.
The cull came as the result of a public information campaign that caused an extraordinary reaction among anxious Britons.
In the summer of 1939 just before the outbreak of war, the National Air Raid Precautions Animals Committee (NARPAC) was formed. They drafted a notice - Advice to Animal Owners.
The pamphlet said: "If at all possible, send or take your household animals into the country in advance of an emergency." It concluded: "If you cannot place them in the care of neighbours, it really is kindest to have them destroyed."

In Memoriam notices started to appear in the press. "Happy memories of Iola, sweet faithful friend, given sleep September 4th 1939, to be saved suffering during the war. A short but happy life - 2 years, 12 weeks. Forgive us little pal," said one in Tail-Wagger Magazine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24478532

It makes sense.
"It was one of things people had to do when the news came - evacuate the children, put up the blackout curtains, kill the cat."
It was the lack of food, not bombs, that posed the biggest threat to wartime pets.

[Oberon]

A sad side effect of war and wartime shortages. I didn't know of this, but it does not surprise me.

[BrucePartington]

Even though I find it heartbreaking, it's certainly more humane than the fate pets had in Leningrad, Stalingrad, and any other heavily besieged city.

[nikimcbee]

That's horrible.

[Red October1984]

IIRC the Japanese killed dogs for some form of clothing too.

It's a very sad thing. If they came for my dog tomorrow...well...they'd have to get through my entire family before they get her.

[Oberon]

Aye, one of the advantages America had of being barely touched during the war, the rest of us weren't so lucky sadly. Makes me wonder how the people at Battersea Dogs Home managed during the blitz, I mean, you know how dogs react to fireworks...and Battersea is right next to the docklands and gas works, prime Luftwaffe target area.
Not to mention the food shortages, especially in Europe, in the UK we got off lightly in comparison to Russia and Germany.

[Platapus]

An interesting read on this type of reaction in the early ways of WWI is

The Phony War: 1939-1940


by Tom Shachtman

[Oberon]

There was a common belief, particularly in the 1920s that 'the bomber would always get through'. That during a major war between superpowers, cities would be absolutely devastated by bombers in a way never witnessed before. It was this that spurred on development of better interceptors and detection systems, as well as the inter-connected RAF detection and interception system which came into play during the Battle of Britain.
So, at the outbreak of the war, there was still a belief amongst people of the city that London could come under the same sort of terrifying destruction that had befallen Guernica and inspired the painting that hangs in the UN. As such, the evacuation of children was undertaken, and most major industries were located outside major cities, aircraft manufacturers and so forth, armament factories were tucked away underground or hidden away in railway tunnels.
There was also a fear that gas attacks would take place, but thankfully that did not take place, and in a manner of speaking, the bomber did get through, but the cost of attrition to the bombers was greatly underestimated, and post-war the saying became more bias towards 'The bomber will not always get through' as air defences became more and more potent.
Honestly, if placed in the position of a family in London as a time came where it was common knowledge that bombing attacks of devastating magnitude were likely to occur on the city around me, as well as a great risk to food supplies, it would be a very hard decision to make, and I don't know which way I would go. Would it have been a greater mercy for the animal to not have had to go through the blitz? To have been spared the swift shot of the gun but be mortally wounded by shrapnel from a bomb?
I wonder how many did die in the Blitz? I did see a figure quoting 400,000 animals in a week, but I think that might have been exagerrated, however considering over 40,000 humans were killed, and they had shelters, it does make you wonder how many animals (who didn't, and were prohibited from entering the public shelters) were killed, not just pets but strays and wildlife too.
Sixty million people died in World War Two, I wonder how many animals died in comparison, a much higher magnitude I would wager.

[TorpX]

In the summer of 1939 just before the outbreak of war, the National Air Raid Precautions Animals Committee (NARPAC) was formed. They drafted a notice - Advice to Animal Owners.
The pamphlet said: "If at all possible, send or take your household animals into the country in advance of an emergency." It concluded: "If you cannot place them in the care of neighbours, it really is kindest to have them destroyed."

To me it's kind of disgusting; many thousands of pets killed before the first bomb was dropped, just because callous, short-sighted government types get themselves into a panic.

[Jimbuna]

I've always and still do consider the UK to be a nation of animal lovers but the figures for animals put to death astound me....surely we as a nation were never that fickle to the contents of government advice on the subject matter of pets?

Air raid and blackout advice etc. yes....but pets

[Platapus]

At least some were trying to find another solution.

But this is what happens when the fear of war determines policy.

[Wolferz]

Collateral damage doesn't discriminate.

[August]

Originally Posted by TorpX

To me it's kind of disgusting; many thousands of pets killed before the first bomb was dropped, just because callous, short-sighted government types get themselves into a panic.

I don't see what you guys are getting worked up over.

As the pamphlet clearly says euthanization is the last resort for an pet that cannot otherwise be cared for in an emergency, and that's a just a recommendation, not an order.

I'd think it'd be much better than leaving poor Fluffy or Spot to starve or experience one of the many other gruesome fates commonly reserved for abandoned animals in war zones.

[Buddahaid]

Every living thing deserves it's chance. Playing God because of ones fright of suffering is misplaced in my thinking.