Reading a couple of recent threads got me thinking about the war-time ration.
Both my parents lived on The Ration (they were born in 1935 and 1941) and later served in the forces so for most of their childhood and early adult years they lived (and thrived) on what the Gov. said they could have.
Food rations
Item Maximum level Minimum level Rations (April 1945)
Bacon and ham 8 oz (227 g) 4 oz (113 g) 4 oz (113 g)
Sugar 16 oz (454 g) 8 oz (227 g) 8 oz (227 g)
Loose tea 4 oz (113 g) 2 oz (57 g) 2 oz (57 g)
Meat 1 s. 2d. 1s 1s. 2d.
Cheese 8 oz (227 g) 1 oz (28 g) 2 oz (57 g)
Vegetarians were allowed an extra 3 oz (85 g) cheese[29]
Preserves 1 lb (0.45 kg) per month
2 lb (0.91 kg) marmalade 8 oz (227 g) per month 2 lb (0.91 kg) marmalade
or 1 lb (0.45 kg) preserve
or 1 lb (0.45 kg) sugar
Butter 8 oz (227 g) 2 oz (57 g) 2 oz (57 g)
Margarine 12 oz (340 g) 4 oz (113 g) 4 oz (113 g)
Lard 3 oz (85 g) 2 oz (57 g) 2 oz (57 g)
Sweets 16 oz (454 g) per month 8 oz (227 g) per month 12 oz (340 g) per month
So, discuss
jennyjj01 wrote:"I'm not in the least bit worried because I'm prepared: Are you?"
Londonpreppy wrote: At its core all prepping is, is making sure you're not down to your last sheet of loo roll when you really need a poo.
I'm sure we've debated this on here before, my folks were born in 1933 (I'm putting the raise of the Nazi party down to coincidence) so remember the whole war experience. I'm not sure how we'd cope as a society if we were forced down this route, who here would want to toss in their food to the common cause, we're a much more selfish bunch than previous generations I think, some of that is from a good place, as in our expectations have risen but some of it is from a bad place, as in 'I'm all right Jack'. There's no doubt 1 or 2 of us would benefit from rationing (not me of course, no sirree, honest, nothing to see here) but I think we'd all grudge being made to do it. Basically unworkable in our modern western societies.
sethorly wrote:All protein and fat (CALORIES haha). Were carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables scarcely eaten or were they not rationed because they were plentiful?
Fruit and veg weren't rationed but were scarce, Gov. tried to counteract this with the "Dig for Victory" campaign (I think I read that a lot of London parks became allotments).
Bread wasn't rationed during the war, but was 1946/48 due to the British wheat harvest failing
wikipedia wrote:...Oranges continued to be sold but greengrocers customarily reserved them for children and pregnant women, who could prove their status by producing their distinctive ration books.
Also, if you read the Wiki article you'll see that Gov. had thought about Vegetarians, special diets and workers who needed packed lunches (mostly rural occupations and miners)
jennyjj01 wrote:"I'm not in the least bit worried because I'm prepared: Are you?"
Londonpreppy wrote: At its core all prepping is, is making sure you're not down to your last sheet of loo roll when you really need a poo.
We were espoused to eat a very heavy potato based diet. That was your carbohydrate basically. Although much was rationed, it was generally accepted that we were well nourished. What rationing also achieved, was to bring good nourishment to a VERY impoverished population. During the 1930's the high level of poverty was a major concern to government.
In three words I can sum up everything I have learned about life: It goes on.
Robert Frost.
Covid 19: After that level of weirdness ,any situation is certainly possible.
Deeps wrote:?....I'm not sure how we'd cope as a society if we were forced down this route, who here would want to toss in their food to the common cause, we're a much more selfish bunch than previous generations I think, some of that is from a good place, as in our expectations have risen but some of it is from a bad place, as in 'I'm all right Jack'. There's no doubt 1 or 2 of us would benefit from rationing (not me of course, no sirree, honest, nothing to see here) but I think we'd all grudge being made to do it. Basically unworkable in our modern western societies.
Unfortunately I'd have to agree , pretty much from the start of the '80's greed has been glorified as the way to go and a change to a more simpler , less materialistic and less wasteful is unlikely to be a smooth one. The irony of course is that we all know we should moderate consumption of not just foodstuffs but fuels , clothing and pretty much all consumer goods. History has shown us that the population was healthier under rationing during the war , far less obesity and diabetes for example. Another example to hold up is Cuba . They have a ration of rice , sugar and the basics virtually unlimited access to fruit and veg and low meat consumption which combined with free healthcare has made them a very healthy society. The WWF has looked and stated that Cuba has the most sustainable model of development in the world . This article makes interesting reading http://www.boulderweekly.com/opinion/ca ... d-the-bad/
Personally I wouldn't be overly concerned with rationing , I try not to over consume or waste . I recycle and repair , use second hand and grow at least some of my own food but it's going to take much more than a desire to grow your own spuds and wear patched jeans for the majority of the population to accept any form of rationing.
I was astounded when a friend of my grandmother's told me that rationing carried on for years in Britain after WWII had ended. The very last restrictions were on meat and didn't end until 1954. Perhaps I was even more shocked to find out that there were no marches in the big cities demanding, "We won this thing! Now where are our bananas?"
would benefit from rationing (not me of course, no sirree, honest, nothing to see here) but I think we'd all grudge being made to do it. Basically unworkable in our modern western societies.