Eating Cats in the Trenches

[At Home Dad]

Hallo all

I have been asked to open a thread 'with a title of my choice', discussing the probable

eating of Trench Moggies by some soldiers on some part of the Western Front at some

point during 1914-1918.

The vast majority of my opinions have been aired on another thread (now closed)

where I have been accused of 'threadjacking'. My rebuttals are there for all to see.

Here is apparently where it can be discussed. In synopsis:

It is an accepted fact that people had eaten cat before the Great War, usually

due to poverty. Within that group it is not inplausible that some people and

families may have aquired a taste for cat meat and preferred it to other available

meat.

It is an accepted fact that many BEF soldiers came from very poor backgrounds

and areas. Within that group it is not inplausible that some may have been raised

with cat meat as part of their diet. Within that sub-group, some may have actually

liked the taste, found the aroma to be a sentimental reminder of home, or both.

It is an accepted fact that propaganda is intended to be misleading.

Simply because there are no mentions of BEF soldiers eating Trench Cat,

I am told (by an interest group) that cats were never eaten. Never, Ever.

They were stroked. That is all that ever happened to the cats. Stroked.

No one ever ate a cat on the Western Front.

One reason I was told was that lighting a fire while under fire is very difficult,

almost impossible and also very very dangerously silly as it draws more fire.

My contention was, and still is, that it all depends on just how hungry you were

especially for something you were really, really missing.

As an example, with source, in the Christmas Day edition of my local paper,

a member of the West Ham Battalion described how, while under fire, he and

other members of the Battalion cooked fried fish which had been stunned and

floated to the surface when rounds hit the canal they were beside.

They dodged artillery to collect the fish, lit a fire which drew more fire, and had a

nosh up "Samuel Issacs would be proud of" in a small bombed warehouse at

the canalside. The soldier was unnamed but ironically gave his initials as W.A.R.

Trench Fry Ups did clearly happen sometimes and while under fire.

Just how tasty was cat meat?

Fortunately, we have a small comparison of the prices for meat (for human consumption)

in Vienna during the Great War.

Elizabeth Robinson Scovil wrote in November 1916 regarding the prices of meat

in the enemy territory:

"Horseflesh is selling in Vienna at 56 cents for the

hindquarter and 54 cents for the forequarter.

Dog meat in Antwerp has risen enourmously in price

and cat meat is so dear the price is prohibitive."

American National Journal of Nursing

Volume 17, Issue 2 pg 143

I do not think she is speaking about pet food.

Clearly, those people were starving but also, most clearly of all,

cat meat was the best meat to eat (when compared to horse & dog),

if the laws of economics are to be believed. It was the tastiest, the

most abundant, or both, hence the premium.

The vast majority of men from my battalion of interest came from extremely poor

areas and some of them probably came from homes where it wasn't unknown for

the family to eat cat meat. Sentimentality wasn't often an available option in their

lives. Unless they were sentimental for a taste and aroma of home, of course.

I'm now of the opinion that some soldiers were more than capable of eating a cat

and, on the balance of probabilities, somewhere on the Western Front it did happen.

I cannot say whether it was openly done or covert. I cannot say whether it was

unofficially approved or worthy of a hefty Field Punishment when caught doing it.

I cannot say why there has been no mention of it before (was it covert?), nor how

widespread or unique it was and I cannot tell you what the colloquialism for eating

Trench Cat was or even if there was one. Sorry.

But I think it's worth exploring because surely, it is beyond plausibility/possibility/probability

to believe that no Trench Cat was ever eaten on the Western Front and that their sole purpose

in the Trenches were as stroking accoutrements?

(The Trench Cat could also be kept as an 'emergency ration', but is more likely to have been

kept as a delicious luxury. By some.)

Trench Cats are worthy of closer inspection, if it hasn't already been done.

Figures for the number of cats on the Western Front have been given as '500,000'

and they are described as being 'employed as 'gas detectors' and 'ratters'.

That figure does seem quite high, especially when you consider they were all un-neutered,

so the birth rate must have been shockingly horrendous.

Personally, I would never consider a cat as a good 'ratter'. If I had a need of a ratter

I would choose a small loyal dog to do the job they are usually employed in and for

which they have been genetically directed. When thinking of a rat catcher man, I see

a chap with a dog, not a man with a cat.

Equally, I wasn't aware that cats were good as 'gas detectors'. I would always assume

that small birds were the best for this role, as used in the mining industry, but perhaps

this has to do with the nature of the composition of the attacking gas, I'm not an expert.

But, again, I would choose a dog for this task, especially as most dogs have very highly

tuned noses, are very fast learners and can get a whiff of something from great distances.

Further to that point, dogs, being more loyal and intelligent than cats, would be able to

inform it's owner in a number of different ways. Barking, tugging, howling etc, generally

good visible indicators when under the din of an artillery barrage or asleep.

A cat would more likely disappear at the first sign of gas, if it was capable of comprehending

the danger. It is not likely to be heard meeowing under the same barrage, nor does sitting on

your chest purring constitute an effective warning system. So I have some problems with the idea

of Trench Cats being used for this, or any role. I am thoroughly open to correction.

However, if I was to use pet Dogs for these roles, Trench Pet, Gasser and Ratter, I would

expect to see many more photo's of them - but dogs are outnumbered by cats in the propaganda,

going by a general impression. Therefore, it might be argued, cats were kept for soemthing else

besides comfort.

The propaganda images of soldiers with Trench Cats are usually captioned with misleading descriptions,

designed to give the impression of cats bringing comfort to some soldiers, reminders of home. They were

only there to be stroked. But when you look at the photos, remove the captions and substitute a culinery

remark, the photo, if anything, makes more sense.

The propaganda stories reliably inform us that it was only the Germans who shot cats and

that Englishmen would often risk their lives and the lives of others to save a wounded

Trench Cat, going so far as to manufacture small splints and bandages and medical facilities.

Clearly, the propaganda is reflecting some level of care for the Trench Cat, but the motivation

must be greater than the simple enjoyment of petting a cat, and there is another possible reason -

Cat Fighting

Organised betting on cat fights did take place, from the 'local' level, one Trench Cat

fighting another when they met on the parapet, with small wagers by the soldiers. It is

perfectly obvious that there is the potential for Cat Fighting to become quite a roaring

trade, especially as it has many advantages.

You can plausibly deny organising it, as cats will often fight when they meet and you

were simply watching the laws of nature take place.

Cat fights are relatively quiet affairs (compared to dog fights) and can be exciting battles

of equals. They are less likely to involve copious amount of blood and are also over quite

quickly and the loser will most likely leave the ring. The defeated cat would then find his

own way back. You could have three or four cat fights in the time it would take to have one

dogfight.

There must have been some very well known Fighting Cats on the Western Front and it

is not wild imagination to suggest that some big bouts probably took place and that the

wagers were most likely large.

I have come across a number of men charged with gambling but sadly never with details of

what they were gambling on.

It could even be worth looking at propaganda photos of cats who are decribed as being

'wounded under fire' etc to see if some of their wounds are actually due to cat fighting

(loss of ear etc).

This is only my opinion, but I think that both scenarios, the eating of and the fighting with Trench Cats

very likely happened somewhere, at some time, by some men.

These men, before the War, would have experienced eating Cat Meat and of attending Cat Fights,

by virtue of where they were born and under what circumstances.

There is no reason to imagine they offered a truce or amnesty to cats during the War.

The propaganda did give us an insight - some of the men really did keep a Trench Cat as "a reminder of Home" -

it's just not always the home that some people thought, or even still today, think it was.

I'm sorry if that idea is unpalatable to some, and that there is no evidence to conclusively

prove either way that it did or didn't happen but I now believe that it probably did and would

welcome any information you may have regarding it.

I am also not denying that some Trench Cats were kept as Pet Cats.

Discussions of Trench Cats on the Western Front are equally welcome if they offer a perspective

different from the simple sentimentalist propaganda stories.

If you wish to use one word expletive replies, please be creative.

Very best regards to all

[Steven Broomfield]

I didn't look at the thread to which you refer, but in answer to the question about how tasty cat meat may or may not be, I believe the Austrlian Russell Braddon, in his book The Naked Island (about his time with the 2nd AIF and as a guest of His Imperial Majesty, Emperor of Japan, compares the tsaste of various meats which he was fortunate enough to sample while assisting in Japanese infratsructure projects. Cat was, I think, one of them. it's in a footnote somewhere in the book, I'm sure.

[Kate Wills]

Fortunately, we have a small comparison of the prices for meat (for human consumption)

in Vienna during the Great War.

Elizabeth Robinson Scovil wrote in November 1916 regarding the prices of meat

in the enemy territory:

"Horseflesh is selling in Vienna at 56 cents for the

hindquarter and 54 cents for the forequarter.

Dog meat in Antwerp has risen enourmously in price

and cat meat is so dear the price is prohibitive."

American National Journal of Nursing

Volume 17, Issue 2 pg 143

I do not think she is speaking about pet food.

Clearly, those people were starving but also, most clearly of all,

cat meat was the best meat to eat (when compared to horse & dog),

if the laws of economics are to be believed. It was the tastiest, the

most abundant, or both, hence the premium.

...

Personally, I would never consider a cat as a good 'ratter'. If I had a need of a ratter

I would choose a small loyal dog to do the job they are usually employed in and for

which they have been genetically directed. When thinking of a rat catcher man, I see

a chap with a dog, not a man with a cat.

I do think Scovil was talking about petfood. Horseflesh, offal and cheaper cuts were sold as petfood.

You say that cats were "abundant" and an ample supply might be had for culinary puposes. That being the case why didn't Scovil report that cats had replaced rabbit, mutton, sausages etc on the dinner table?

I read her report as saying that meat had risen in price so much that the cheap cuts purchsed FOR feeding TO dogs and cats was getting beyond the resources of most family budgets. Meat for dogs would be cheaper as it would usually include bones.

I was brought up with cats and dogs. My own cats have demonstrated their abilities as ratters and mousers, and do not require my bidding to do so. The reason rat catchers are usually accompanied by small terriers is that dogs regard their owner / companions as pack-leaders. They will follow them everywhere and assist in catching after the rat-catcher man has flushed them out. Cats can perform the entire operation unaided. They are solitary predators, not pack-hunters. I remember one rat catcher many moons ago saying that whereas he loved his dogs, his cats did the real work, not least "because they have the patience of Job".

[Steven Broomfield]

Trying to be on-topic, I answered a question - what does cat taste like - as best i could by reference to a printed source. That said (and having read the 'other' thread), I really see no reason why men in the trenches, who were generally well-supplied, would bother to eat cats. Given that most men looked on cats and dogs as links with home, I would have thought you would have to be utterly desparate (as Braddon was) to eat a cat.

I think I can honestly say I've never seen a reference to eating cats in the trenches.

Butcher Beynon from Llaregub, though ....

[Gunner Bailey]

As someone who is not a cat lover by any means I think this thread goes beyond 'reserch' into the 'Outer Limits'. If there's no mention of cats being eaten anywhere in WW1 it probably didn't happen. Starting a thread like this can lead to people believing it did happen, such is the power of the internet. I would close this thread to stop the discussion going further. Don't invent history.

John

[Roy Evans]

Possibly off topic but my late father (who came through WW2) used to tell me that cats tasted like rabbit. Don't know how he knew though.

Roy

[truthergw]

Believing something to be true does not make it an accepted fact. Can we have some credible sources for the list of ' facts' quoted? Isolated occurrences may actually be simply the exceptions which prove the rule. The descriptions I have read or been given in conversations of life in the front line trenches, does not support the idea that it would be feasible to raise, slaughter and cook cats on a regular basis.

[Ken S.]

Evidently not because he's already been asked to do so.

[Nigel Marshall]

The ONLY time I have read of cats being eaten by humans was by a French population close to starvation during the Franco - Prussian War, some 40 years earlier than our period. Even then I can't be sure how reliable the source was.

Cheers,

Nigel

[Ken S.]

Not quite in "the the trenches" but here's an eating cat on a US Coast Guard ship c. WWI era...

And then there's this...

New thread perhaps? What should its title be?

[Kate Wills]

This is only my opinion, but I think that both scenarios, the eating of and the fighting with Trench Cats

very likely happened somewhere, at some time, by some men.

These men, before the War, would have experienced eating Cat Meat and of attending Cat Fights, by virtue of where they were born and under what circumstances.

You seem quite certain of this. Do you have evidence of either activity before the war?

How were cat fights organised, and how do you compel a cat to fight? Did this take place in a controlled environment, such as a ring?

You say "Organised betting on cat fights did take place, from the 'local' level, one Trench Cat fighting another when they met on the parapet, with small wagers by the soldiers."

Details please, because I cannot envisage how this might work. Surely, if the cats were fighting ON the parapet, they and the spectators would have been in mortal danger of succumbing to sniper fire.

[Doc2]

The ONLY time I have read of cats being eaten by humans was by a French population close to starvation during the Franco - Prussian War, some 40 years earlier than our period. Even then I can't be sure how reliable the source was.

Cheers,

Nigel

Nigel, I am afraid you are incorrect. Cats are frequently eaten by humans around the world. In Korea, where I lived for a while, they are considered a delicacy (along with dogs). Several years ago, when I lived in Germany, it was noted that all the neighborhood cats were disappearing-- after investigation, a local Chinese restaurant was closed, as they had been catching and cooking the cats (not from a need for cheap meat, but because their customers liked it). I have absolutely no knowledge of this happening in the trenches, but it certainly would not surprise me. I see no reason to doubt that at some time in the trenches some soldiers may have eaten cat. Why not? (and I am a cat lover). When my father was a POW, they happily ate rats, insects, and anything else they could catch-- I am sure he would have been happy to eat a cat if he could have caught one. Doc

[David B]

Having had much experience of life in the Far East, especially Korea, one thing you won't find too often on the streets of Hong Kong and Korean towns is dogs and cats, they love them and not

the cuddly love, but the culinary love. I can't really imagine that western civilized society would stand for knocking a cat over the head and eating it in the trenches, it's just something we normally

do not do.

David

[auchonvillerssomme]

I'm not sure of the motives of this thread but starving people will eat anything and some adventurous souls will eat anything just to see what it tastes like, -

Who does AHD talking about British? French? German? Portugese? Belgian? Russian? or any of the other partticipants?

I would challenge his assumption that the statement published in the American National Journal of Nursing wasn't about the flesh of cats and dogs -

Dog meat in Antwerp has risen enourmously in price

and cat meat is so dear the price is prohibitive."

American National Journal of Nursing

Volume 17, Issue 2 pg 143

The term cat and dog meat at the time clearly referred to what we now refer to as cat and dog food. For example

Consumption of Horse Flesh (London).HC Deb 11 April 1910 vol 16 c870 870

§ Mr. GEORGE TERRELL asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he had any official information as to the purchase of horseflesh for consumption as food by the poorer classes in London?

§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns) My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am not aware of any place in London at which horseflesh is sold for human food under the provisions of the Sale of Horseflesh Regulation Act, 1889. In a Report made by the Medical Officer of Health of the London County Cuncil it is, however, suggested that some of the meat sold as cats' meat may in fact be used for human consumption.

There are other references of the term being used for example

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/cat%20meat?decade=1900s

Mick

[Andy Wade]

I'm sure this product isn't inferring that the tin contains cat meat.

And fido's not in here either:

[Gunner Bailey]

In 15 posts this thread has proved to be a total waste of space. Reeks of Trolling.

John

[Andy Wade]

In 15 posts this thread has proved to be a total waste of space. Reeks of Trolling.

John

Lock the thread then.

[dfaulder]

I don't think anyone can actually exclude the possibility that a cat (or even cats) were eaten by hungry soldiers cut-off from supplies - that is like being asked to prove a negative. Likewise: I don't think anyone can actually exclude the possibility that a human (or even humans) were eaten by hungry soldiers cut-off from supplies. We do know of incidents (e.g. the Andes Air-crash a number of decades ago) where the latter happened - and there was "meat" available due to previous deaths. Do we know (i.e. have seen records from the time) that cats were eaten (either as a result of deliberate slaughter, or opportunist eating of an already dead animal) and are those reports at a similar level to those of "in-extremis" cannibalism?

Likewise for organised cat-fighting. I can imagine that some soldiers will bet on anything (snails crossing a duck-board, number of rats killed in the trench in a day, a sweepstake on what the type of barrage the Germans will next send over, etc.), so taking bets on a scrap that occurs between two semi-feral cats seems entirely possible and unremarkable. However, the deliberate organisation of the rearing and preparation of cats for specific fights seems unlikely (in the absence of records from the time). Dogs or Cocks (US: Roosters), yes. But, cats? When I worked in the academic world, it was said that managing academics is "like trying to herd cats", i.e. next to impossible.

I think this also underlines Kate's point about cats for ratting etc. and the comparison with dogs. Dogs are happy to "belong" to you as pack leader and can be persuaded to do your will. Cats, however, seem to have a contrary view - they seem to think that you are there for their benefit. Therefore whilst you can take a dog ratting, you can't with a cat. However, a cat will quite happily hunt mice and rats that invade their area - they will tolerate you benefiting from their work, but they won't work for you!

I therefore, feel that the most plausible reasons (in the absence of other evidence) for Soldiers apparently welcoming and caring for cats in the trenches is that they are a reminder of home (and of normality in a weird world) and they also help keep the trenches clear of vermin. Arguably this is applying Occram's Razer.

David

[auchonvillerssomme]

I don't think this thread is entirely useless, I have today learnt new words and definition - 'Occam's razor' thank you to David for widening my vocabulary.

Mick

[phil@basildon]

Many people may have eaten cat unknowingly. Cat tastes very much like rabbit and with the head, paws and skin removed is almost indistinguishable. There was a case in Romford market in the 50's/60's of a trader passing off cat as rabbit.

[janecavell]

I agree with Lord Acton on this one:

'History, to be above evasion or dispute, must stand on documents, not on opinions.'

[Gunner Bailey]

I don't think anyone can actually exclude the possibility that a cat (or even cats) were eaten by hungry soldiers cut-off from supplies - that is like being asked to prove a negative. Likewise: I don't think anyone can actually exclude the possibility that a human (or even humans) were eaten by hungry soldiers cut-off from supplies. We do know of incidents (e.g. the Andes Air-crash a number of decades ago) where the latter happened - and there was "meat" available due to previous deaths. Do we know (i.e. have seen records from the time) that cats were eaten (either as a result of deliberate slaughter, or opportunist eating of an already dead animal) and are those reports at a similar level to those of "in-extremis" cannibalism?

David

David

Likewise you cannot exclude the Angel of Mons being a UFO or Mangin being a cannibal. However the chances of either being fact are as great as the chance of new information on the feline diet of soldiers being unearthed after 90 years. This is a waste of time.

Also where is the thread starter if this is not a trolling exercise?

John

[At Home Dad]

Hallo Kate

Well, of course, I could be viewing the world through my own tinted spectacles,

where I assumed that by November 1916, the blockade of enemy territory was

taking effect and causing a lack of food among the various levels and classes

of the populations in Antwerp and Vienna.

I very naturally assumed that, just as in the 21st Century, the first people to be hit

the hardest would be the very poor. I naturally came to the conclusion that what

was being described was the food eaten by those very poor people and showing

a price scale of what they would pay due to hunger. I made that assumption due

to the publisher, a medical journal of human health matters. This, in turn, led me

to believe that, on the taste 'scale', horsemeat is horrible, dog is bearable and that

catmeat probably tastes something like chicken. What's interesting, is that the price

scale bears this out. From experiences in Asia, people have told me that cat tastes

better than dog and that horse is horrible. I'm more than happy to admit I may have

misinterpreted the data if in fact I have.

Or, it could perhaps be you who are viewing the world through the tinted spectacles

of the 21st Century - with more than 40 available types of cat food, some of them

even described as 'gourmet'. You yourself live with a number of cats. Is it any wonder

you might misinterpret the description as being about pet food? Especially when 1916

cat food is apparently the most expensive! You yourself know how 'picky' a cat can be

when it comes to food (these days) and so it sits comfortably with you that cat food

should be the most expensive on the list.

I however prefer to err on the side of it being an illustration of the effect on the poorest

who are the most hit hardest, before the general population. Besides which, it would

seem to be a poor measure of the health of the poorest of the besieged population.

I wasn't aware that the health of the poverty stricken can be judged by what they feed their pets.

But, we are entitled to hold our views and I respect your input to the discussion and thank you for it.

With reference to cat fighting and its organised betting, the primary source

was actually from the propaganda piece which began the whole debate:

"Now, the Tommies are wondering what will happen when the orange cat recovers sufficiently

to take an interest in life once more. They are expecting a terrific encounter between the two

and are already betting upon the result."

That's an organised cat fight. It wouldn't take anyone long to see the potential for profit,

especially if he was a low life cut throat from the darkest alleyways of Limehouse used

to living those ways... People like that did go to war too, many of them Volunteered to go.

I'm not going to trawl the records of the Old Bailey to find reference on your behalf to charges

relating to Cat Fighting nor am I even going to move an inch towards my bookcase to look up

the innumerable books on the East End I have here. You should believe me that cat fights

occured in the vile alleyways of London (and many other cities too!) before the War and there

should be no reason to doubt they probably ocurred on the Western Front.

Very best to you

I do think Scovil was talking about petfood. Horseflesh, offal and cheaper cuts were sold as petfood.

You say that cats were "abundant" and an ample supply might be had for culinary puposes. That being the case why didn't Scovil report that cats had replaced rabbit, mutton, sausages etc on the dinner table?

I read her report as saying that meat had risen in price so much that the cheap cuts purchsed FOR feeding TO dogs and cats was getting beyond the resources of most family budgets. Meat for dogs would be cheaper as it would usually include bones.

I was brought up with cats and dogs. My own cats have demonstrated their abilities as ratters and mousers, and do not require my bidding to do so. The reason rat catchers are usually accompanied by small terriers is that dogs regard their owner / companions as pack-leaders. They will follow them everywhere and assist in catching after the rat-catcher man has flushed them out. Cats can perform the entire operation unaided. They are solitary predators, not pack-hunters. I remember one rat catcher many moons ago saying that whereas he loved his dogs, his cats did the real work, not least "because they have the patience of Job".

[At Home Dad]

Hallo John

Are you seriously suggesting that I am a Troll?

Then I must have been an undercover "super sleeper Troll",

embedded for two years, with more than 700 ww1 related

posts to my username.

I find your insinuation disrespectful, but prefer to hold it merely

as a reflection of what happens to people when faced with

logical sense they cant actually stomach or bother to pitch

counter opinions.

What is a real 'waste of time' is you attempting to tarnish

me with the petty, yet derisive, troll remark. Twice...

If anything, this is proving to be a very revealing discussion,

although the revelations are the people who suddenly drop

their guard and show us their true face. Some even appear

to enjoy attempts at online bullying.

It's ironic that such indignation can be caused, by the question

of whether a cat was eaten, on a forum dedicated to studying

the detail of the horrendous destruction of millions of men.

I'm quite happy knowing that there are some members who probably

agree with the logic of the thread but who are fearful of posting and

incurring the wrath of the 'cat clique'.

One of the things I've always enjoyed about GWF is the fact that

debate was good natured and always informative. I'm sad to say

that some members are beginning to destroy that image.

Throughout this discussion, over two seperate threads, I have

remained respectful, polite, lucid in my argument and open to

changing my mind. In return I have had insults and snide remarks,

been told to shut up, had my words cack handedly edited by a

moderator, and had relevant posts on this thread deleted by a

moderator. It says much about some elements of the Great War Forum

very best to you

where is the thread starter if this is not a trolling exercise?

[Dragon]

ATH

In order to provide some rigour and credibility to this thread, please will you provide:

1. Published, peer reviewed evidence of the scale of the eating of cats by humans in the years preceding the start of the Great War.

2. Published evidence which leads you to believe that cats were consumed by soldiers in the Front Line during the Great War. Not only that it was plausible that they did, but evidence that this happened.

It is insulting our intelligence to expect the forum to discuss a question on the basis of 'might have been', 'must have', assumption and imagination.

Gwyn