How do I donate this letter by a medical officer about the German Spring Offensive bombing March 21, 2018

[LeCauroy]

6 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

I think there are a number of those, such as: http://www.ww1photos.com/worldwaronephotoarchive.html

Thanks sir! Looks like a good site.

[LeCauroy]

Adding a little more context to the letter and the photos

 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

LeCauroy, thank you for sharing this - a fascinating record.

On the subject of dogs, if you had asked me before I discovered my grandfather's diary, I would have thought it wholly impractical to have a dog in the front line. Having read the diary, in which my grandad gives an account of his Battalion CO's dog, an Airedale terrier called John Minden, being brought up at least as far forward as battalion HQ (see https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/282303-afb-252-airedale-terrier-leaving-his-post-without-permission”/?tab=comments#comment-2897989), and on at least one occasion going out on patrol (though it was quickly decided that that was not such a good idea), I went the other way, and assumed that it was fairly commonplace. That assumption was reinforced by the fact that, even in my short membership of this Forum, I have come across a number of references to dogs (e.g. https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/282510-malaria-on-the-western-front/?tab=comments#comment-2901344 where a post by @RegHannay on 15 June 2020 implies that his step grandfather had put a photograph of his dog into his diary, and https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/246473-36-casualty-clearing-station-casualties/?tab=comments#comment-2892205 , where on 24 May 2020 Benjamin Thyla posted a photograph of an RAMC Lieutenanat Colonel with a pet terrier. Having said that, now that I think about it, I can't be sure that the latter two dogs were with their masters actually at the front, but John Minden certainly was. Of course, John Minden's master was a fairly senior officer, which must have accounted in large part for his presence being allowed, and also, on one of the photos which my grandad has inserted in his diary, someone has written "John Minden, our regimental pet", which perhaps was used as an added justification, since, as @MaureenE has commented, it seems you could get away with practically any type of animal as a mascot (another battalion in which my grandad served had a goat, brought back from Egypt). It is interesting to note that Le Cauroy's grandfather was a medical man, so were the owners of the dogs mentioned in the other two posts to which I have provided links, and so also was the owner of John Minden by civilian profession, though not in fact serving as a medical man at the time he had the dog in the front line; might this also have had something to do with the presence of the dogs - perhaps a recognition that having a pet in a stressful situation might have therapeutic efficacy?

Having read Frogsmile's comments in this thread, I have revised my assumption that it was "commonplace" to have a dog at the front, and now recognise that, although it was not unheard of, it was rare. If you search "pet dog" on this Forum, only three pages of references (which appear to include references to both "dog" and "pet dog") come up, of which I would estimate at least a third relate to modern day dogs in Skindles Club posts.

 

 

 

 

Edited 17 August , 2021 by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

[LeCauroy]

Lancashire Fusilier, 

          Thanks for the info and the great stories about your grandfather! Great job on his website by the way. Looking forward to exploring it more in depth. This subject is so interesting that I started a new thread and linked to your comment. 

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/292556-the-dogs-of-war-canine-heroes-of-wwi/

 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

On 17/08/2021 at 02:30, LeCauroy said:

Thanks for the info and the great stories about your grandfather! Great job on his website by the way. Looking forward to exploring it more in depth. This subject is so interesting that I started a new thread and linked to your comment. 

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/292556-the-dogs-of-war-canine-heroes-of-wwi/

Thanks Le Cauroy.

I'm glad that you like the website.

By the way, my grandfather's original diary is in the IWM in London. It appears that the IWM do not assume physical ownership, but act as sustodians, though I can't envisage our family ever wishing to remove it - we are only too pleased that it is being properly cared for, and accessible to others if anyone wants to read the original in its entirety. However, in case you are thinking of depositing the material relating to your grandfather with them, my understanding is that the Museum is not currently accepting new items owing to covid, nor do I know precisely what criteria they apply when deciding whether to accept items.

Tricia

[FROGSMILE]

Although dogs with infantry battalions was not a commonplace situation during WW1 it did sometimes occur, often through the influence of lieutenant colonels commanding units, who enjoyed a remarkable degree of autonomy within the bounds of their battalion and its role.  Infantry battalions moved around all the time and essentially followed a set, rotational routine of a period in the line, a period on rest (a misnomer as fatigue duties were onerous and constant) and a period on training, before then returning to the line.  In addition they might be moved between brigades, divisions and theatres of war.  As such they had to develop a peripatetic culture that made the keeping and movement of animals, other than some individual mascots, very problematic.  A more common phenomenon was camp dogs, where such animals stayed [unofficially] as part of a transit establishment in a rear area, tolerated and petted by the men who routinely moved through.  Nonetheless, some frontline dogs did sometimes exist and a particularly famous example (of morale boosting media fame) was ‘Airedale Jack’.  I do not know how accurate the following quote is (I detect a whiff of romantic licence), but make of it what you will:

“One story that stood out to me while I was researching this subject was that of an Airedale named Jack, who apparently helped save a British battalion in 1918. Jack went to France as a messenger and guard with the Sherwood Foresters, who were sent to man an advance post. There was an intense barrage four miles behind the lines, cutting off every line of communication with HQ. Unless HQ could be informed that reinforcements were needed pronto, the entire battalion risked being killed by the advancing enemy. It was impossible for any man to dodge the fire, but Airedale Jack provided a small chance and a glimmer of hope. The vital message was slipped into the a pouch attached to the dog's collar, and this loyal and courageous canine, keeping low to the ground, ran through a barrage of enemy fire for half a mile to deliver the message to HQ. When he got there he was badly injured – his jaw was broken, and one leg was severely splintered. He did his duty, delivered the message, then dropped dead at the receiver’s feet.”  [However, it’s important to note that these were not pets but official ‘messenger dogs’ trained and operated by the Signal Service of the Royal Engineers].

NB.  As a note of caution there is a British cultural tradition of such stories connecting dogs with soldiers, perhaps the most famous example is “Greyfriars Bobby”, which was even made into a film in Scotland where the story is set.

Footnote:  the dog in a trench shown below is from a publicity shot of a Territorial Force unit training in Britain and does not reflect active service.  Conversely the lowermost picture shows Sammy, the mascot of 4th Northumberland Fusiliers, which went with the battalion to France in 1915, where he was KIA on the Somme in 1916.

Afternote:  the BBC did a piece on the use of officially employed military dogs here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-25147640.amp

 

 

 

Edited 11 November , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[FROGSMILE]

In connection with Maureen’s earlier post regarding the prevalence of dogs with officers of the Indian Army, here is Indian Army officer Lieutenant Charles Mosse of the 120th Rajputana Infantry.  Photos courtesy of the National Army Museum.

Edited 11 November , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[LeCauroy]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

In connection with Maureen’s earlier post regarding the prevalence of dogs with officers of the Indian Army, here is Indian Army officer Lieutenant Charles Mosse of the 120th Rajputana Infantry.  Photos courtesy of the National Army Museum.

Thanks for this Frogsmile! Great analysis, photos, stories etc. The story of Airedale Jack’s sacrifice connects to some questions I have been thinking about recently while bonding with two golden retrievers. What accounts for the special bond between human beings and dogs? Do dogs really love their owners? The tales of heroic sacrifices of dogs for their owners in war and peacetime would seem to indicate that they do, but being a skeptic, I wanted to ask the question scientifically. I was surprised to discover that there is a lot of serious research on canine cognition being done today. 

A Google search for the question “Does my dog really love me” came up with the following recent interview with a researcher in canine cognition. While he is hesitant about using the L-word in scientific research, he appears to come to the conclusion that the evidence says Yes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/09/25/what-makes-dogs-so-special-successful-love/

All this might seem off-topic, but I think it is relevant to the discussion of dogs during the Great War. We honor The Fallen because they made heroic sacrifices for others during the war. A soldier making a sacrifice for others during war is an act of love, however reluctant we are to use that much abused word. This is one of the reasons we honor their memory.

If the dogs of the Great War really did make sacrifices for their units that were motivated by similar sentiments as human heroes of WWI (instead of their actions being the result of sum form of Skinner-type behavioral conditioning), then they do seem to be truly heroic and should be honored as such. 

Perhaps there should be more attention given to the heroic dogs of the Great War. The actions of a carrier pigeon in wartime are the result of stimulus-response mechanisms. A carrier pigeon’s actions in war can’t be seen as heroic service to humans. But because of their special bond with humans, the sacrifices of a messenger dog can. 

In this line of thinking, Airedale Jack was truly a hero not just an animal looking forward to treats he will get when the job was done. If that were the case, he would just be a mercenary for hire. : )

[FROGSMILE]

35 minutes ago, LeCauroy said:

Thanks for this Frogsmile! Great analysis, photos, stories etc. The story of Airedale Jack’s sacrifice connects to some questions I have been thinking about recently while bonding with two golden retrievers. What accounts for the special bond between human beings and dogs? Do dogs really love their owners? The tales of heroic sacrifices of dogs for their owners in war and peacetime would seem to indicate that they do, but being a skeptic, I wanted to ask the question scientifically. I was surprised to discover that there is a lot of serious research on canine cognition being done today. 

A Google search for the question “Does my dog really love me” came up with the following recent interview with a researcher in canine cognition. While he is hesitant about using the L-word in scientific research, he appears to come to the conclusion that the evidence says Yes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/09/25/what-makes-dogs-so-special-successful-love/

All this might seem off-topic, but I think it is relevant to the discussion of dogs during the Great War. We honor The Fallen because they made heroic sacrifices for others during the war. A soldier making a sacrifice for others during war is an act of love, however reluctant we are to use that much abused word. This is one of the reasons we honor their memory.

If the dogs of the Great War really did make sacrifices for their units that were motivated by similar sentiments as human heroes of WWI (instead of their actions being the result of sum form of Skinner-type behavioral conditioning), then they do seem to be truly heroic and should be honored as such. 

Perhaps there should be more attention given to the heroic dogs of the Great War. The actions of a carrier pigeon in wartime are the result of stimulus-response mechanisms. A carrier pigeon’s actions in war can’t be seen as heroic service to humans. But because of their special bond with humans, the sacrifices of a messenger dog can. 

In this line of thinking, Airedale Jack was truly a hero not just an animal looking forward to treats he will get when the job was done. If that were the case, he would just be a mercenary for hire. : )

You are just a born romantic.  Dogs love routine and whomsoever their food comes from.  They have a deep instinct for survival.  Personally (and I recognise and accept that others will think differently) I believe it’s nothing more complicated than that.  They are animals at the end of the day and to transfer our human feelings into them because it suits our yearning for deeper meaning seems overt romanticism.  You’ve been watching way too much Disney.

Edited 11 November , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[LeCauroy]

On 11/11/2021 at 07:21, FROGSMILE said:

You are just a born romantic.  Dogs love routine and whomsoever their food comes from.  They have a deep instinct for survival.  Personally (and I recognise and accept that others will think differently) I believe it’s nothing more complicated than that.  They are animals at the end of the day and to transfer our human feelings into them because it suits our yearning for deeper meaning seems overt romanticism.  You’ve been watching way too much Disney.

     Did you read that interview with the scientist? There have been a lot of serious canine cognition experiments done recently including FMRI studies that show a real bond that dogs have to their owners. 

       Maybe it has less to do with romanticism on my part and more with cynicism on yours. Cynics have a bias too. They think everyone is always out for themselves (including dogs). While that may be true in most cases, a lot of it is the cynic’s projection and confirmation bias. I am skeptical too but I hold out the hope that true selfless heroism is possible, even within an evolutionary framework.

Example: Postmodern Marxists see all historical phenomena, including the seemingly non-political, as a power struggle. They project that on to everything. 

      But this conversation is veering off into philosophy and away from the Great War so if you want let’s continue it in private messaging. : )

 

[FROGSMILE]

42 minutes ago, LeCauroy said:

     Did you read that interview with the scientist? There have been a lot of serious canine cognition experiments done recently including FMRI studies that show a real bond that dogs have to their owners. 

       Maybe it has less to do with romanticism on my part and more with cynicism on yours. Cynics have a bias too. They think everyone is always out for themselves (including dogs). While that may be true in most cases, a lot of it is the cynic’s projection and confirmation bias. I am skeptical too but I hold out the hope that true selfless heroism is possible, even within an evolutionary framework.

Example: Postmodern Marxists see all historical phenomena, including the seemingly non-political, as a power struggle. They project that on to everything. 

      But this conversation is veering off into philosophy and away from the Great War so if you want let’s continue it in private messaging. : )

 

Yes you have me bang to rights, I have a deeply cynical slant on some things.  I know your intent is good, but I’d rather stick to WW1.  You asked me a question and I answered it in all truthfulness, but I don’t care enough about the canine psyche to debate it here, or in PM. I respect your views nonetheless. 

Edited 12 November , 2021 by FROGSMILE

[LeCauroy]

On 12/11/2021 at 09:20, FROGSMILE said:

Yes you have me bang to rights, I have a deeply cynical slant on some things.  I know your intent is good, but I’d rather stick to WW1.  You asked me a question and I answered it in all truthfulness, but I don’t care enough about the canine psyche to debate it here, or in PM. I respect your views nonetheless. 

Totally understand. I will leave you with this great WWI photo I happened upon. 

A. R. COSTER, TOPICAL PRESS AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES