Eating Cats in the Trenches

[AlanCurragh]

...had my words cack handedly edited by a moderator, and had relevant posts on this thread deleted by a moderator

I deleted the sexual innuendo that you knowingly posted (and please don't repost it), and the various comments that related to it. Please tell me which relevant posts have been deleted.

Alan

[Dragon]

"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

.

No, it isn't. It's no different from me looking at my male kitten, wondering what will happen when he is big enough to defend his territory and expecting to watch him seeing off [chasing off, not killing] in grand style the white and black stray. The bets are a bit of fun. The most likely outcome of anything organised with cats is that both of them will sit down and lick their rears.

For evidence of how sentimental men away from home can be about animals they encounter, you only have to look at the photos of vast numbers of French dogs brought back from Dunkirk. Even troops up in the horrible conditions on the Vosges front had cats, dogs, white mice, tame pet rats and even a parrot. They were their 'comfort blankets', their bit of warmth and love, and if possible, they took them home with them afterwards. Alive.

Gwyn

[27thBN]

This thread is off

[Gunner Bailey]

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

ATH

This thread is a nonsense and I'm sure you know it. I greatly respect the majority of forum members who post sensible and known history related threads. I think you are trying to elicit emotions from cat lovers and stir things up. I don't think it will work as the mods are obviously looking carefully at this thread and have generously tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Start posting sensible threads and you will have my respect, but not for this one.

John

[ianw]

On the fascinating subject of domestic pets in war, I seem to recall reading that goldfish grew to enormous size in various ponds isolated by the entrenchments and fortifications of the Great War. They were genetically modified to reach the size of small dolphins by the picric acid residue of shells falling in the ponds and subsequently became a favourite foodstuff of particularly German troops who, as the war progressed, were unable to get adequate supplies of cats.

I can't remember where I read this interesting fact. Can any other Forum members confirm this from their own studies.

Regards

E L Wisty

W.D.L

[At Home Dad]

Hallo John

As set out in the first post, I do not accept it as a nonsense

and find it not only plausible but also sensible to accept it.

I think it is the cat lovers who are being over-sensitive and are

allowing their judgement to be clouded by the comfort of 21st

Century thinking. It's very revealing.

To earn your respect I have to start posting sensible threads?

That rudely throws all my previous 700+ posts in to the rubbish

bin. I would never think to say such a thing to another member

the GWF. If I came across a thread (as I often do) which doesn't

take my interest I dont read it. If I see something silly or naive

written in a thread I dont take time out to go and make a banal or

flippant remark and add nothing more to the subject under discussion.

The mods should be looking carefully at this thread, in an effort to

remind a few other posters of the GWF rules on respect. They wont

find that it's me who reduces the level, even though the subject matter

may be unpleasant reading to some.

I wont hold my breath to see if they mods'll actually admonish anyone in

the future. Some of them fall in to the cat lover crowd too, it would seem.

Please dont assume I'm trolling by my absence or failure to reply quickly.

I am actually an At Home Dad, full time to a four year old and the Summer

holidays have begun.

Very best to you

Hallo Gwyn

The bets may have been fun, but wasn't gambling contrary to Kings Regulations?

I take it you're quite happy to suggest that gambling was overlooked, if it involved cats fighting?

All the best

Hallo Alan

You did not delete sexual innuendo, you deleted accuracy.

Any sexual innuendo was brought by your mind, not by what I wrote.

I used one of the colloquial terms for a cat, circa 1914-1918. You

decided to interpret that as 21st Century sexual, for reasons you

should perhaps keep to yourself.

The accuracy was again pointed out in my reply to the person who first

objected to my original thread title. The accuracy and relevance was made

again. I also asked a question regarding a colloquial term used by British

Soldiers for 'that which must remain unmentioned'. I was hopeful of a reply

but it too was deleted...

You then took it upon yourself to retitle my thread 'Cat Meat... after the cat fights"

which would make me think it's about what happened to the dead cats after cat fight.

It would not make me think of some soldiers eating some cat at some time,

somewhere on the Western Front.

It took yet another request to actually title the thread in a way

that was finally accurate, and one which I had to suggest to you.

This was after I was told the thread could be called what I wanted.

However, the thread title is there now, so thank you once again

for your kind assistance in this matter.

very best to you

ATH

This thread is a nonsense and I'm sure you know it. I greatly respect the majority of forum members who post sensible and known history related threads. I think you are trying to elicit emotions from cat lovers and stir things up. I don't think it will work as the mods are obviously looking carefully at this thread and have generously tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Start posting sensible threads and you will have my respect, but not for this one.

John

[Dragon]

Hallo Gwyn

The bets may have been fun, but wasn't gambling contrary to Kings Regulations?

I take it you're quite happy to suggest that gambling was overlooked, if it involved cats fighting?

I suggested no such thing. Could you please stop inferring and deal with facts?

I have recently been reading some material containing letters written from soldiers in the Vosges. Everything I have read supports this assertion:

Dans les tranchées, chat et chiens comblent les carences affectives des soldats. Nos amis les bêtes sont partout, y comprise là où on les attend pas.

Some even gave nicknames to the wildlife which visited frequently. A couple of chaffinches had nicknames, a large jay was called François-Joseph, an owl was named Kaiser, a starling Guillaume, a blackbird Kronprinz... It was, the writer says, une véritable volière. These birds visited every evening for food. That is, to be given food, not to become food.

En Avril, 1915, il trouve couché sur sa poitrine un petit chat noir et blanc tremblant du peur, de froid et de faim. Le chat le suivra des mois durant. Un guetteur de 356e, homme simple et doux, devient fou furieux d'avoir vu un rapace estropier un oiseau qui s' était construit un nid au-dessus de la tranchée. Il tire sur la buse et Henri Genet, son lieutenant, le retrouve accroupi, en train de dévorer la cervelle du rapace, qu'il tient entre ses jambes.

If you don't mind, I'll leave the quotations in French, so you know I'm not doctoring them.

This is the behaviour of men who welcomed the companionship of animals and wildlife. It fulfilled a gap in their lives: the need for something to love. The observer didn't kill the bird of prey in order to eat it; he was furious because it had injured the bird which had built its nest above the trench. The little cat which had nestled on the chest of the writer became his loyal follower, not his next hot dinner.

To read more than affection and longing into these men's behaviour is taking it too far.

Gwyn

[Kate Wills]

Hallo John

As set out in the first post, I do not accept it as a nonsense

and find it not only plausible but also sensible to accept it.

KW's reply >> Sensible to accept something as fact simply because it seems plausible?

The mods should be looking carefully at this thread.

KW's reply >> We are.

Hallo Alan

You did not delete sexual innuendo, you deleted accuracy.

Any sexual innuendo was brought by your mind, not by what I wrote.

I used one of the colloquial terms for a cat, circa 1914-1918. You

decided to interpret that as 21st Century sexual, for reasons you

should perhaps keep to yourself.

::::::::::

KW's reply I interpret the above as a gratuitous insult which deserves an apology. It is at variance with your stated position that "Throughout this discussion, over two seperate threads, I have remained respectful, polite, lucid.."

[Kate Wills]

To return to the subject, here is some documentary evidence from the Edwardian period. It is extracted from Cecil H Rolph's memoir London Particulars. Rolph was born around 1900:

On Sunday afternoons there came, of course, the muffin man with his handbell and the huge tray of muffins and crumpets balanced so skilfully on his head, resting on what looked like a collection of cloth caps compressed by the weight of the tray into a suitable cushion. One of the questions with which I plagued my elders was why the muffins were always covered with a green baize cloth, and I never got any more satisfactory answer than that the muffin man's cloth had always been of green baize. My father (and therefore my mother) would never buy food from street sellers unless it was of the kind that could be washed - watercress, apples and so on. So I don't think we ever had street muffins. But we were fascinated by the muffin man's balancing skill, his brass handbell, and the slow rotation of the long tray as he turned round, usually opposite our house it seemed, to see whether anyone wanted him.

My mother would never think of buying from the man who strode the centre of Corbyn Street howling 'WIRE ABBESS' but actually selling wild rabbits. These, said my parents - and, come to think of it, all the grown-ups-produced dark meat and were less appetizing than the Ostend rabbits you could buy in the shops. Why Ostend rabbits? I never did understand why a great Belgian seaport should produce the only desirable rabbit. (I am now reliably told that these were also known as Flemish Giants, and were indeed reared in Belgium as tame rabbits for the table; sometimes weighing as much as 15 or 16 pounds. There must have been a considerable import trade in them.) Nor can I understand why rabbit has disappeared from our dinner tables, on which it made a brief reappearance during Hitler's war as if we classed it with horse or dog meat, to be eaten only in adversity.

Daily there was a cat's-meat man, and ours always came pushing a home-made box-cart on an old pram chassis. He was followed by a retinue of expectant cats, who knew it to be full of feline kebabs - small bits of cooked horsemeat pushed on to wooden skewers, a halfpenny a skewerful. If, at the house of a regular customer, the cat's-meat man got no answer to his knock or ring, he pushed the kebab through the letter-box and collected the halfpenny the next time round. Most cats would polish off the meat as soon as it came through the letter-box, and the homecoming cat-owner would find on the doormat a clean-licked skewer. There were rival cat's-meat men who, instead of putting their delivery through the letter-box, would wedge it under the street-door knocker. Such men underestimated the agility of neighbouring and uninvited cats, who were actually seen to dislodge such prizes, after perhaps several failures, and feloniously make off with them. At one time this development was being seriously discussed as an ingenious and safer method of 'knocking down ginger', demanding only an old piece of fish, the nerve to go and lodge it under someone's door-knocker, and a hungry cat to be held firmly until the right moment had come.

By the way, I think the Ostend rabbits were what my grandmother knew as Belgian Hares, which they kept for the table in their tied-cottage garden.

[Dragon]

That cat meat man is almost exactly as described by the octogenarian to whom I referred in the other thread. The difference is that his cat meat man left the meat for the cat on the windowledge.

Gwyn

[CarylW]

At Home Dad

Has the thought crossed your mind that you might be acting in a hypocritical manner in this and the other thread? Here

You originally posted this thread using an offensive title, and you know you did, and I suspect you did that in order to draw the most attention to the thread in the hope that the more members who viewed your post, someone somewhere would agree with your revised theory/now opinion that during the Great War "some soldiers eating some cat at some time, somewhere on the Western Front".

Those who objected to the title of your thread, which included a moderator and a female member were then ridiculed by you and had their state of mind questioned

You have also objected to the title of your thread being changed and yet you wanted me to change the title of my thread to accommodate your theory. How does that work then?

You asked those who did not agree with your theories to refrain from posting. How does that work then?

Fair debate? I don't think so!

When asked formally by a moderator to start your own thread on the previous thread, you carried on being insulting

You called us all names in the other thread. You also insulted our intelligence and integrity by suggesting that all we wanted to see in that thread were 'cats in hats', monkeys in hats', or 'simian soldiers' There was also a suggestion that we viewed all soldiers as "saintly".

Collectively, those who disagreed with you have been called 'cat lovers', 'fundamentalists, 'cat mafiosi' or worse, in an attempt to nullify our comments and suggestions? (incidentally I prefer dogs, and you did ask in the other thread why there were no dog pictures. I could in fact show you photo after photo of dogs in trenches, pets and messenger dogs but that thread was about cats)

All of your insults are all still there on the other thread and yet you complain of members being abusive to you here and there and you used the word bullying

I would put it to you, that it is in fact you who is acting like a bully

Post after post on the other thread you expressed the theory/now opinion that the only reason British soldiers kept cats in trenches was because they planned to eat them

I was going to post sound-bites of your posts there on here but didn't think it was fair so I haven't, but they are all there in their original context. You were repeatedly asked to provide proof but you failed to do so

Then finally because no-one actually agreed with you, you started flailing about looking for an anecdote, any anecdote that 'a cat was eaten somewhere'

So you were not entirely honest at the start of this thread, about your previously stated opinions. Did you hope that by changing them you might actually have a validation from 'somewhere' and have you now in any way changed your opinions? Do you feel that your opinions have been validated?

I ask you once more. Where are the sources for your opinion that British soldiers kept cats in the trenches in order to eat them?

I would like to see evidence now please

Caryl

[ianw]

What a bizarre thread - but a mini-classic in its little way.

[Michael Johnson]

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.

I do recall an account by a British officer (Graves?) that he was taught to count the ribs on "rabbits" that the locals were trying to sell the troops. Apparently cats and rabbits don't have the same number, or perhaps types, of ribs. And apparently there had been cases of cat being sold as rabbit.

[AlanCurragh]

I wont hold my breath to see if they mods'll actually admonish anyone in the future. Some of them fall in to the cat lover crowd too, it would seem.

The "cat lover" crowd? What on earth are you talking about? Why the fascination with eating cats anyway? For "reasons you should perhaps keep to yourself"?

I used one of the colloquial terms for a cat, circa 1914-1918. You decided to interpret that as 21st Century sexual, for reasons you should perhaps keep to yourself.

We live in the 21st Century - any language used on this forum can have connotations not dreamt of 100 years ago. But you know that very well. As Caryl says, you just wanted to draw attention to this thread. Would you use the colloquial term you refer to in front of your 4 year old? Would you be happy for them to use it in the playground?

Alan

[salesie]

I think this is the most eccentric thread I've ever read on this forum - it's a bit like a Monty Python sketch, with one man's bizarrely ludicrous assertions jerking quite a few knees.

So, I'll add to the fun - here's a photo of a "soldier" who would probably relish a good feed on cat meat (the meat of a cat itself, not the meat to feed a cat). The "soldier" in question is a terrier (a breed of dog from which many examples would make any cat look like a rank amateur at ratting) and is standing next to his owner. The owner was to become infamous on the world stage after WW1, an infamy that lasts even to this day, but he was devoted to his "canine comrade" in and out of the line (although the dog was a deserter from the other side). Guess who?

Many of you will know immediately the identity of the owner of a probable cat murdering/eating "soldier", but if not then the answer lies in this link to another thread where I wrote a fictionalised account about this factual man-dog, probably cat hating/eating, relationship : http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=116343&view=findpost&p=1113042

Cheers-salesie.

[At Home Dad]

Hallo Kate

As you're going to participate in this thread more, I'd be glad to have

a bit clearer understanding of your ability to swop hats.

I dont trust your judgement on this subject, as a moderator who lives

with a number of cats. I'm quite happy for you to continue posting your

interesting information, but hold off making the creepy and somewhat

'amateur dramatic' "I am watching you" style statements as an Admin

at the same time.

Or else lurk around in the shadows, monitoring other peoples behaviour and

refrain from posting an opinion. There is a clear and undeniable conflict of

interest in your behaviour visible to me. You say nothing to a poster who uses

the language of the gutter in an attempt to criticise my opinion. You had to be

reminded by me to perform the function of Admin and to remind others of the

need for politeness.

You are very welcome to interpret the previous reply to the other chap as "a

gratuitous insult which deserves an apology". I'm afraid I dont. Please point

out the specific insult or inpoliteness. What part of his mind, body or soul was

being insulted by what I said? My request is the same: I'm not interested in

knowing the depths of his 'mucky mind'. I wont offer an apology, without being

told where the insult lies, even if he asks me himself.

And yes, I do regard it sensible to accept something as fact because it seems

plausible. Men have been hung on less, men are currently held in Guantanamo

or under house arrest in UK for less. Jurors are told about using the 'balance of

probabilities' and judgement. Quite sensible.

Very best to you

Hallo Gwyn

Do you believe that "the behaviour of men who welcomed the companionship of

animals and wildlife" was shared by all members of the BEF? Do you readily

believe the propaganda that Cats were only ever shot by Germans? Or did

Englishmen probably shoot cats on German parapets too?

very best regards

Hallo Alan,

I'd have no problem with my daughter using the word, if applied to cats.

That's the only way she would use it, as it's the only thing she is aware

is called that. If someone older wishes to judge my daughter by the fact

that sex is at the forefront of their mind it is sad for them not for my daughter.

The interest I now have of whether cats were ever eaten in the trenches lies

in the fact that so many people are telling me it never happened, to be honest.

I hadn't noticed Caryl's comments as I ignore her posts since she resorted to

swearing.

Very best to you

As for being continually asked for the evidence it would appear that some have problems

with comprehension. I've already stated, first post, that I have no evidence and that there

is a possibility that some data which might provide evidence has been misinterpreted.

For example, a reference to eating 'Australian Rabbit' may be taken (by someone who

isnt aware) that the men ate rabbit meat sent over from Australia. But the the term was

sometimes given to cat meat when sold as a fraud of rabbit. It's not the researchers

fault for misinterpreting the data. The document in which the reference is made in

may never be opened again and the researcher die of old age. Does that mean it

never happened? No, it means it's not been identified.

Equally, an observation that Officers are warned to count the ribs on French 'rabbits'

can imply that while Officers wouldn't eat cat, some Soldiers did probably buy it.

The French most likely made paté from the cat livers and sold that to the Officers instead.

Many thanks to those who have so far contributed with information

which helps move the thread forward, it is appreciated.

Kind regards, all

[Kath]

The silly season's started already!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_season

Kath.

[CarylW]

At Home Dad

You wrote "I hadn't noticed Caryl's comments as I ignore her posts since she resorted to

swearing"

For which I profusely apologized at the end of my thread and until you educated me in the ways of the world and called 'Utter and total bollox" a profanity, and called me a "pottymouth" in the process, I hadn't realised it was one!. I used the word in exasperation after post after post of insults from you. Swearing? was it?

Oh but since you are not reading my posts any more, it's irrelevant what I say here. Most probably you could not reply to my previous post in your usual manner because it was the truth of the matter

I'm past caring and will leave you to carry on with your playground politics. I suspect that this is a wind up and I know I have better things to do

Caryl.

[Morris]

before this thread gets locked...

My father, who was an RAMC doctor in the war, would not eat curry after leaving the Army on the basis that he had seen it used to disguise all manner of meat, but that was "mainly" horse.

And his unit however, like most, went to a great deal of effort to kept cats alive and around as much as possible to deal with rats and mice.

Nonetheless, as a docotr, he heard of a case in the 1960's in what must remain an unamed town in the West Country where items that looked like rabbits, but were cats were found in the fridge of a Chinese restaurant.

And Belgian Rabbits could be (can be) enormous: have a look on Wiki. the Blue Hem could weigh up to 12lbs.

alfred

[Dragon]

Hallo Gwyn

Do you believe that "the behaviour of men who welcomed the companionship of

animals and wildlife" was shared by all members of the BEF?

The BEF were not fighting in the Vosges.

[AlanCurragh]

You are very welcome to interpret the previous reply to the other chap as "a gratuitous insult which deserves an apology". I'm afraid I dont. Please point out the specific insult or inpoliteness. What part of his mind, body or soul was being insulted by what I said? My request is the same: I'm not interested in knowing the depths of his 'mucky mind'. I wont offer an apology, without being

told where the insult lies, even if he asks me himself.

Well, I'm the "other chap" with the "mucky mind" and I don't really care if you apologise. The rest of the forum can make up its mind who has the "mucky mind" - after all, I'm quite sure they can guess what your now deleted thread title was.

I'd have no problem with my daughter using the word, if applied to cats.

But it's not the word, it's the phrase. I know what you want me to do, re-post the exact phrase you used. I won't give you the satisfaction. Oh, and by the way, the phrase you used was reported on more than one occasion.

The interest I now have of whether cats were ever eaten in the trenches lies in the fact that so many people are telling me it never happened, to be honest.

Actually you brought it up first on Caryl's original thread

--

Really, why are you bothering? I hate to go all mod-heavy on you but you're requesting that one mod shouldn't post any more unless it meets your conditions, and another has a "mucky mind". Your West Ham blog looks a fine piece of work, and as commented above, you have made hundreds of posts on the forum. Please consider carefully your future posts.

Alan

[Gunner Bailey]

AHD

There is a phrase in politics many could learn from.

'When you are in a hole, stop digging'.

John

[Andy Wade]

So...

Do cats like fig rolls then? I think we should be told. I think the case for cats eating biscuits is well proven. Dodger! Here boy! Come on, try this ginger nut. No? OK, I'll have it then. Pass the biscuit barrel and put the kettle on, there's a good cat.

[Kate Wills]

I however prefer to err

So I see.

You say you "dont trust [my] judgement on this subject, as a moderator who lives with a number of cats..."

I did not have the company of cats until I was 7 years old. I was however, born into a family with four dogs, and currently share my home with a family of swifts. Does that make my opinion more acceptable?

You welcomed the information on 13th Essex concert parties I forwarded to you some while ago; indeed, you entered it onto your blog. Are you sure you can you trust my judgement on this either? After all, the material came from someone who keeps company with cats; so, by your reckoning, MUST be suspect.

Thankyou for inviting me to continue posting my "interesting information". So kind. I will ponder the practicalities of accepting your gracious permission.

[manchester terrier]

AHD could you be barking up the wrong tree?

Its interesting that the largest consumers of cat meat, as identified by Doc 2, RGArtillery and Alfred Morris are the Chinese.

Since there was a large Chinese presence on the western front and a large trench cat population, would it not suggest that the troops were carrying out cat farming to supply the Chinese with their favoured meat?

Possibly some men,who pre-war were familiar with the culinary habits of the Limehouse Chinese, spotted a gap in the market and recruited their comrades as unwitting accomplicies. Most troops no doubt thought the cats were pets, whilst the men behind the cat farming schemes reaped the rewards whilst hoodwinking their comrades.

I would suggest that the easiest way to transport cats from the trenches to the customer was by "kipper herding". Using this technique a man trailing a fine Manx kipper behind him could possibly move two to three hundred cats a night.

The revenue generated was possibly laundered by purchasing War Bonds at home.

No doubt research into the background of "East End lads made good" after the war, might reveal their connections to this nefarious activity.