Hi /r/AskHistorians. My name is Hannah and I am a second year PhD student at Kansas State University. Here's a bit of info about me, at these two links: Women Also Know History and my Department Biography. I am also really active on Twitter.

My research is focused on the Dogs for Defense program and the war dogs of World War II. Before I start answering questions, I want to give a small overview of Dogs for Defense.

What was Dogs for Defense?

Dogs for Defense was formed in January 1942. The organization was formed by AKC Poodle breeder, Alene Erlanger, and other dog fanciers who believed that dogs had to be involved in the war. At the time of World War II, the US did not have a formal dog army. Erlanger had attempted to get a dog army during the World War I, but the legislation died in Congress. Congress believed that dogs could not be trained effectively and that the public would not support the effort. On March 13, 1942 the Army authorized the training of 200 dogs that were to be donated for Dogs for Defense and trained as sentries. It was the first time that dogs were formally recognized by the United States Military. Dogs were donated by their owners for military service. In all, 20,000 dogs were donated and around 10,000 dogs served. If we consider a division between 10,000 to 20,000 soldiers --- the number of donated dogs was enough to make an entire division. It's pretty amazing if you think about it.

Where did dogs serve?

Dogs served everywhere. You maybe familiar with the dogs who served in the Pacific Theater under the direction of the USMC and the Army. They are who we think of when we say "war dogs." However, dogs served in the European theater including the African and Sicily campaigns. Dogs also remained stateside and served with the US Coast Guard, patrolling the beaches of California.

What resources are there for Dogs for Defense and the war dogs?

Some of the literature and memoirs that have been published about Dogs for Defense and the war dogs include:

• Dogs for Defense: American Dogs in the Second World War, 1941-1945 by Fairfax Downey (1955)
• Dogs for Democracy: The Story of America's Canine Heroes in the Second World War by Thomas Young (1944)
• Always Faithful: A Memoir of the Marine Dogs of WWII by Captain William W. Putney, D.V.M. and U.S.M.C. (Ret)
• Diary of a War Dog Platoon by Wiley S. Isom

I will be answering questions from 3:30 to 5:30 EST. I'm excited to read your questions, and hopefully provide some answers. :)

Edit: Hi everyone. I am actually going to push this to 3:30-5:30 EST. I’m going to see if a few more questions roll in before I start answering :)

EDIT 2: HI everyone. I'm going to stop taking new questions, but I am going to be answering all the questions that I have here. Thanks so much for the support. This has been very fun.

Disclaimer: I am a US historian. Although I am familiar with how other armies used dogs in World War II, I do not feel comfortable answering in depth questions as they are not my focus. I would be happy to direct you to resources about the use of dogs by other armies if you have questions.

Previously

Today:

You know the drill: this is the thread for all your history-related outpourings that are not necessarily questions. Minor questions that you feel don't need or merit their own threads are welcome too. Discovered a great new book, documentary, article or blog? Has your Ph.D. application been successful? Have you made an archaeological discovery in your back yard? Did you find an anecdote about the Doge of Venice telling a joke to Michel Foucault? Tell us all about it.

As usual, moderation in this thread will be relatively non-existent -- jokes, anecdotes and light-hearted banter are welcome.

This subreddit has previously been asked about thoughts on Dan Carlin, with some interesting responses (although that post is now seven years old). However, I'm interested in a more narrow question - how is his content from an accuracy perspective? When he represents facts, are they generally accepted historical facts? When he presents particular narratives, are they generally accepted narratives? When he characterizes ongoing debates among historians, are those characterizations accurate? Etc.

https://imgur.com/a/vfelUHU

https://imgur.com/a/g9NWxj4

https://m.imgur.com/duS3xZA?r (specifically the 1942 one)

I can only conclude that the people about to be gassed had to walk in front of (and see) the cremation ovens themselves right before entering the the gas chamber, as the other way in passes through rooms filled with stuff that those about to be executed are not supposed to see (human remains/ashes more specifically).

So my question is, wouldn’t they have started to panic even before entering the gas room when they would have seen the ovens + the smell, making the SS’s work much harder? Were they told it was for heating the water? I feel like I’m missing some details about how the process in that particular crematorium worked, if anyone would like to fill me in on that.

Also, as a side question, what were the Jews and prisoners in general usually told about the smell and smoke stacks coming from the crematoriums themselves (not just in Auschwitz, but also other extermination camps)?

(Double also, before anyone decides to call me something I’m not, these questions are purely out of curiosity. I’m not a denier, never will be.)