World War II - Rationing

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:26 pm

I have another question about WWII, this time about rationing. In the USA, I know there was a ration on several items such as meats and sugar among other things and I'm sure the same was true for the UK. I'm assuming households received ration cards based on family size although there may have been other criteria.

Let's say you were out shopping and stopped at Woolworth's lunch counter for a cup of coffee and a slice of cake. In addition to payment, were you expected to give them ration cards for the cake since it had sugar as an ingredient? What about sugar you may have put in your coffee while there? Did restaurants & diners have to operate within any guidelines for sugar consumption? Same question for meat ... if you had a steak dinner in a restaurant, did you have to provide your ration card?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:57 am

As far as I know, you only used ration cards for food bought over the counter, not at a restaurant. Everything was rationed - all food except what you grew yourself, clothes, petrol, everything. Eating out, or food provided by your place of work, was an important part of making your ration last. You had to register with a supplier of the goods rationed, and you could only buy from that supplier. Rationing was finally ended in in 1954, cos by the end of the war we were flat broke and exhausted. Took us years to recover. Many would argue we never have.

tabby · Post by **tabby** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:42 am

Thank you, Clodhopper! I suppose the victory gardens played a huge role too ... gardening probably went from a weekend hobby to a major food supply for the family. Times like that would certainly bring out the resourcefulness in people. It's hard to imagine rationing on such a large scale today but things seem to have a way of going in circles so who knows. I hate to imagine the circumstances that would lead to it!

Post by **spot** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:42 am

It's noteworthy that the British ate more healthily under rationing than they do today.

Clod's right, rationing was for raw ingredients and not for meals out. The working class couldn't afford frequent meals out so rationing restricted their intake far more than it did the wealthier tiers of society. Not surprising, really.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:08 am

The working class couldn't afford frequent meals out so rationing restricted their intake far more than it did the wealthier tiers of society

But no-one starved or was - as far as I am aware - badly undernourished. Children and pregnant women got extra rations, and I understand quite a few places of work provided some sort of lunch, which helped the poorer folk.

As far as I can see, the system worked pretty well. There was abuse and a black market, of course, but the population stayed fit and healthy. Nicholas Monserrat served in Corvettes throughout the war (Corvettes being the smallest escort vessels sent into the North Atlantic in winter) and wrote some wartime propaganda published as Three Corvettes. He is very interesting on wartime ration abusers and comments how those he hears boasting about how they've wangled an extra petrol ration might be less proud of themselves had they ever seen the crew fail to escape from a burning torpedoed oil tanker.

Monserrat used his experiences to write The Cruel Sea, which is the best account I know of what it is was like to keep the trans-Atlantic lifeline open in those early, desperate years.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:51 am

spot;1376240 wrote: It's noteworthy that the British ate more healthily under rationing than they do today.

Clod's right, rationing was for raw ingredients and not for meals out. The working class couldn't afford frequent meals out so rationing restricted their intake far more than it did the wealthier tiers of society. Not surprising, really.

Got that one wrong spot, it meant a fairer distribution of food so the poorer elements of society found they were actually eating better than they did before, people used to just starve if they were poor what help you did get was means tested - they didn't end the workhouses till after the war. At least in wartime they got food and everybody got the same with extra for children and pregnant mothers. It's just one of the many reasons why so many were determined not to go back to the way things were with the rich taking everything and the poor left to just get on with it That plus it was mainly the poor doing the actual dying and having their homes blasted to bits people wanted things to change for the better. We've gone backwards a bit now they're telling us the rich need to keep their money and not pay tax so they can "trickle" down the wealth.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:36 am

The Victory gardens I don't know much about. They were certainly used as propaganda to show how much effort was needed to provide food, but what proportion of UK calorie intake was provided 1939-45 by Victory gardens I don't know.

I'll see what I can dig up, if anything.

After a not very detailed search, the only number I could find linked to Victory gardens is 10% of food consumed. Which if true certainly makes it more than just propaganda!

The Gov't cetainly seemed to put a good deal of effort into encouraging it, with leaflets of tips on how to grow, what to grow, and so on. I wonder if this is the beginnings of the popularity of gardening programs?