Wednesday, 15 April 2009

Comparing rations

I'm easily distracted. You've probably already noticed. Something in "British Food Control" about WW I rations.

WW I Food Control. Why do I find it so fascinating? It must reveal something about my character, obsessing over rationing in the Great War. (Or "The World War" as they call it in the book. It was published in 1928. Calling the First World War would have shown eery prescience.)

Where was I? Rationing. That was it. (Don't expect any beer theme in this post. Not until I clumsily insert an irrelevant reference a few sentences before concluding.) Being married to a German, I'm well aware that there were two sides two WW I and WW II. So seeing British and German rations compared was a real treat.

It's no great surprise, seeing as food riots brought the Germans to sue for peace, that the German rations were smaller than the British. The Germans did get more potatoes. I feel a table coming on. Just wait a second while I tippy-tap away at a spreadsheet . . . . . . . .

. . . . .


almost done . . . . .


. . . . . . . .



Those numbers tell the story of how WW I was won. By the Royal Navy (with the assistance of the Japanese Navy and later the US Navy). All that slaughter on the Western Front turned out to have been a complete waste of time. It decided nothing. The Germans and Austrians were starved into surrender. Very medieval.

Barclay Perkins! (Andrew typed that. Well done, lad. Theme maintained.)


Did I say the forced beer reference would be a couple of sentences from the end? Promise kept.

1 comment:

Brendan said...

all about the meat differential. See wwII ration cards, especially US ones. Meats vs. other assorted calories, the protein heavy nation wins. But maybe ostensibly buddhist/shinto countries are at a disadvantage inherently...