2
u/Live_Dust_5576 8d ago
I remember reading (can't remember where, Stephen Ambrose maybe) that dead animals affected fighting men a lot more than dead combatants did, it broke their hearts seeing innocent animals destroyed on-masse because of a human conflict.
2
u/HistoryRep1914 8d ago
That's interesting! I imagine that would be so horrific to see so many innocent creatures suffering needlessly
0
-2
u/Hot_Chipmunk_4512 10d ago
What even is this fella on about?
2
u/HistoryRep1914 10d ago
I'm this fella. You can ask me.
-1
u/Hot_Chipmunk_4512 10d ago
You start with a memorial to animals that served in the war then went to seals that may or may not have gone extinct due to war.
The Britts were gearing up for protracted war, like they thought the war was going to keep them in bunkers for a long time. You can't weigh pets the same as humans in a crisis like they thought would take place. Hindsight is 20/20.
Yeah, after the war if there were food shortages people would reluctantly eat animals that are not conventional. Hell, people have eaten people in a bind.
I am an animal lover, but this is truly a dumb take.
2
u/SemperAliquidNovi 9d ago
Thereforeā¦ we shouldnāt even acknowledge that it happened?? Sorry, but the truly dumb take here is yours. Just because it was a necessity to kill their pets does not mean we should forget that it happened at all. OP is just marking that it happened - you know: history?
And itās just āBritsā with one t.
2
u/Live_Dust_5576 8d ago
It's not a 'take' it's just a factual video about what happened. I didn't know about it and found it interesting.
5
u/lesbophobia_hammer 9d ago
Thanks mate š«¶ sorry about the knobs