on c-span3 every weekend. to keep up with the latest history news. announcer: recently, american history tv was at the american historical association's annual meeting in denver, colorado. we spoke with professors, authors, and graduate students about their research. this interview is about 20 minutes. medlock, with chelsea a history professor at oklahoma state university. one of the more interesting we have seen is the use of war animals. how common was a for the u.s. and other military forces to use animals in world war i and world war ii? chelsea: it was really quite common up until right after world war ii going into the korean war. in world war i, you had all types of animals, such as horses

, the largest group, followed by camels, war dogs, elephants occasionally, depending on the terrain and oxen and bull. if you can think of any kind , it was probably at least in the war, whether it was a pet or mascot or working animal. >> what were pigeons used for? chelsea: pigeons would be used for carrier pigeons and homing pigeons to convey messages across the lines. host: messages attached to them? chelsea: yes. one of the more famous ones that the american military used in world war i, its name was charity.

it is credited with saving the in 1918.alion andas shot numerous times basically died as soon as it landed back at headquarters. host: is that pidgeon memorialized in any way? ownsea: it has its memorial, and it has been stuffed in a museum. host: you mentioned elephants. obviously these are large animals for moving things. what sort of things with a have moved during wartime? chelsea: they could move large-scale, mostly lumber and maybe wagons. they weren't used to extensively -- weren't used too extensively. they mostly used horses and oxen. host: the u.s. coming into world

war ii, the automobile has been invented. there are mechanized tanks, aircraft, but also a great deal of use of horses. so soldiers would be very familiarized with how to handle a horse in terms of its use for hauling canon and other material like that. chelsea: it is one of those things where the industrial revolution is really taking horses out of the cities. you have this great divide between soldiers that are being drafted or volunteering from the city and those that are coming from the countryside in terms of the level of association they have with animals. instanceslot of where, especially for the british and americans, you have

to go and train the soldiers how to take care of the horses and how to feed them. how do you feed them, one of the best way to brush their coats and maintain their hose -- there -- their hooves. oft: defined the familiarity british and american forces was different from that of the german forces? used horses differently? general, all sides tended to use the same types of animals for the same types of workloads. some examples that might be a little bit different were that the belgians specifically used guns,o move their machine

which was a little out of the ordinary, but the use of working dogs in general was not. they used dogs for anything from search and rescue and bomb searching later on in world war message dogs. even in world war ii, there was examples of the soviets training dogs as antitank deployment. host: how would they have been used like that? chelsea: strapped with a bomb and trained to run under axis down or nazi tanks and lay , and then boom. host: give us an idea of the

number of dogs that would have ,een brought in in any unit sticking with an american unit something you may be familiar with. chelsea: it could be anywhere between thousands, maybe 10,000. wareally depended on the that was involved. there was less dogs in world war i, a lot more courses. the brick -- more horses. the british themselves used well over half a million horses alone , and then you piled dogs and pigeons and everything on top of it, and the united states was basically the same most of the time. you need more heavy lifting animals in world war i than you did dogs, but it becomes reversed for the u.s. in world war ii. by world war ii, you have mostly dogs and a few horses.

the united states actually kept their horse population well into the war and never used it. host: i assume all these animals come from the u.s.? brought trained and over and station the same way the troops are brought over? chelsea: it comes down to expenses. if it was less expensive to use animals already over in europe, then they would use those. if they needed something a little more specialized, such as mules, they would send the mules over. the u.s. shipped over mules in world war ii for the italian campaign. host: because of the roads they faced? chelsea: because of the terrain, the mountainous region they had to cross. you couldn't use motorized vehicles very often.

in world war i, one of the most fascinating things i found was that even know the united states was not in the war for more than maybe a year and a half, and definitely not on the ground more than a year, they were the togest supplier of horses the british. close toped over hundreds of thousands of horses and other livestock to the british, and then the british would send it into france and other locations that they were fighting on. so the united states, even though they weren't fighting until 1917, they had a very pivotal role in the course of thed war i with regards to logistics that were involved. host: i think you mentioned the

germans that strapped explosives -- the soviets, i'm sorry. did the united states ever do that? chelsea: not that i know of. there were some unusual experiments with animals in war in the 1950's and 1960's, where they tried to use animals more as formal weapons, but that was not a big thing for the united states. the united states used more traditional roles for war dogs that they continue to use today. host: did any of the training ever begin to get pushback in america from organizations like the aspca or other animal where fair -- animal welfare groups with mark -- groups?

chelsea: there is always been inhback in varying degrees united states, and in britain during world war i and world war ii, but one of the things to keep in mind is that during those wars, it was a great sense of patriotism, and so the animal welfare groups are more interested in being involved with the war effort and supporting the troops and supporting the animals that were in combat, so there was a lot of fundraising and sending of medical supplies to the veterinary corps. the pushback was more of an issue of coming we know you need supplies, we will give you supplies so that these animals have a better existence in the war. we understand you have to use them, and we are not against

that, but if you could make it just a little bit easier on them, that would be fantastic. host: you mentioned the poor british carrier pigeon, now stuffed, but memorialized. dogsmericans memorialized and other animals who served in the wars? chelsea: one of the biggest ones that is really associated with world war i is sergeant stubby. kind of mascot for a specific u.s. unit. of americanrse involvement, he acquired numerous medals. there's photographs of him wearing this beautiful draped cloak filled with metals on both

sides for his capturing or the close proximity of german soldiers in world war i to the americans. up as the prime example for american involvement with regards to animals. another one that has really been memorialized, not so much for his involvement in world war i, even though he was, would be written 1010 -- would be rin- tin-tin. he was found by an american soldier on the front lines in the western front as a puppy, and they just made him a mascot. he was involved in the trench life for the americans and deployment.

back, that brought notoriety from being involved in the war helped propel him into a career in hollywood. then you had multiple rin-t in-tins that carry on his legacy. host: there is a tradition of fondness for animals in wartime. the union general had the horse who was shot numerous times and was stuffed in a museum in philadelphia, but memorialized their. this seems like this is as much part of that tradition. chelsea: it is an extension of it. one of the things that my research really focuses on is that there is this moving away from emphasizing individual animals to memorialize war animals in general.

push from both soldiers and animal welfare organizations during world war i into world war ii that we think that we should think about them as combatants in and of their own right, and we should honor their service as a whole. so you see a lot of memorials devoted to all animals of world war i or all warhorses that thought with us. that isthe trend starting to really take hold at the turn of the 20th century. we see it still playing out today with a lot of memorials that are popping up. conversation,ur one of my colleagues mentioned the photos he had taken of a cemetery on long -- cemetery in of a memorialam

for service dogs. not so manyre are pet cemeteries that i know of of actual war animal cemeteries. is that, justues like in britain, there is an issue for the united states with the expense of shipping animals -- ofome, a quarantine quarantine issues, so a lot of time the animals had to stay where they were deployed. you had to go through a lot of red tape to get animals back home. a lot of times, they just had to stay put. what first got you interested in this area of military history? chelsea: when i was an undergraduate, i actually did my research on motorized technology.

i was looking at the history of automobiles and trains and airplanes with regards to world war i, and how it was supposed to be removing horses from the battlefront. what i came to realize is that that wasn't happening in world war i specifically. interest toed my dramatic partess of world war i, which was the animals and what they were doing to help with the war effort. host: program you're presenting here at the american historical association is the supplementation, memory, and veteran status of war animals since 1900. specifically, what do you hope people learn from that? chelsea: the biggest thing i want people to take away from my that we now idea

expand the come to definition of what a veteran is. it is still really developing, and it is new even today, over 100 years later. but that is what i am trying to deserve --t animals that there is a trend of animals deserving this type of moral status. host: it would seem up there is a direct parallel to police officers who are canine officers. most of those officers and view their dogs as their partners. chelsea: exactly. funeralspolice canine funerals you see on social media all the time. you can see military versions of that, even as late as last year.

chelsea want to thank medlock, history instructor at oklahoma state university. we have been talking about the issue of the use of animals in wartime since 1900. thanks for being here with us on "american history tv." chelsea: thanks so much for having me. announcer: visit our website, c-span.org/history. schedule,ew our preview upcoming programs, and what college lectures, museum tours, archival films, and more. "american history tv" at c-span.org/history. announcer: sunday night on "afterwards," congressman ken buck of colorado, also a member of the freedom caucus, discusses his book "drain the swamp, how washington corruption is worse than you think." andhen you arrive in d.c. have the surroundings i described earlier, you get very

comfortable in that situation. you don't want to give up those comforts. the way to continue to earn those comforts is to spend more money and grow government and not solve problems, but to create programs and take credit for those programs, whether they are proficient or effective, to take credit for those programs. many of the members of congress are here. it is the best job they have ever had, the highest paying job ever had, and a job that they don't want to give up. is more reelection important than the actual problem solving that needs to go on in d.c. ,"nouncer: watch "afterwards sunday night and a copy eastern on c-span twos "tv." -- c-span2's "tv."

announcer: each week we bring you archival films. "the power of decision" was made by the air force for the strategic air command. it simulates a quick strike response to a soviet attack. in the new cleared -- in the nuclear conflict depicted, many die. probably used for training, this film was made public by george washington university's national security archives in 2011. at this moment, you are in the central part of the united states, over 100 feet below the surface of the earth, surrounded by thick, reinforced concrete. in the event of an attack, this entire structure can be see a, protected against a radioactive fallout.