Depends at what point during rationing, but it wouldn’t be too hard to get coffee at all. And even then you had the lucrative black market. You would obviously be worse off than your peers who liked tea though.
Yeah, rationing was easily one of the most hated things on the British home front. Rationing continued several years after the war and more or less directly led to the Labour government losing to the Conservatives over the issue of continuing rationing.
Things that were less obvious to the general public were rationed until 80s, maybe even early 90s. Certain types of fluids for machinery hydraulics, certain types of alloys, a large number of purified chemicals for a wide range of industries and uses.
Basically the Americans went back to their pre-war policy of fucking over and undermining the British whenever possible. To make sure the British Empire dissolved and America was to secure its place as the new super power.
They were very harsh on Britiain and France for post war depts, meaning Britian had to spend what little money it had paying off the Americans instead of feeding people, and the Americans also withdrew thir direct food support that hey had sent during the war that made things even worse.
All of this while they were investing heavily into building Germany back up as a buffer to the Soviets.
A couple points to help clarify why these actions were taken:
The British (and French) owed the US for WW1 and the Nazis were financial trolls who didn’t pay back Anglo or French debts because they wanted to fuck over the lenders (who they felt were Jewish).
The US had lent out over a $1T to the Allied powers for WW1 and that’s why FDR supported England while the US was neutral - losing that much money would ruin any country in 1940.
The cause of the rise of fascism in Germany after WW1 was determined to be the austerity enforced on the Germans in order to pay back the reparations. Investing in Germany was mandatory to eliminate the rise of another populist dictator.
This was the second war Britain got into that it could defend itself abroad without the US (Singapore was an embarrassment for Britain and the Burma campaign is underreported but showed the English were still fighting in their colonial style of using poorly trained irregulars that repeatedly cost them supply and initiative). It became clear to the US that the British could not afford another war and we’re in no position to rebel against any judgement imposed on them.
Britain was also losing her own colonial nations that had nothing to do with America. India was never going to remain a British occupied region. Huge swaths of Africa were decidedly outside her grasp. Most of the middle east was also anxious for their own independence so Britain never stood a chance of being their Victorian size for long.
I mean… that’s not quite right. The combined food board stopped in 1946, which certainly didn’t help, but the Labour government made many choices that didn’t help the cause combined with bad luck. Wikipedia certainly doesn’t agree with your assessments.
Lend-lease repayments didn’t start til 1951. That repayment plan was 50 years at 2% interest. The US lend-lease plan involved the US giving the UK $31B, that’s the equivalent to $500B today. How that could be anything by a gigantic gift between allies I’m unclear.
That’s a lot of money. I’m sorry you think it was harsh - but it doesn’t read that way to me at all.
More importantly, the US was the one leading the rebuilding of Germany - France and the UK were still trying to dismantle German heavy industry until 1950 or so. The UK (but more especially France) spent more time repressing the German economy post-war (just like post WW1…) than trying to build it back up.
Then there was the Marshall Plan, which the UK received 26% of the total funds from (about $200B today - and 3% of the GDP of the countries aided).
This whole comment skirts around the issues i mention in my comment while also garnishing it with praise for tangential acts the US did during the war.
Yes the US were rather generous DURING the war. My comment never says otherwise, but its the Post-war actions of the US that I mention. You even try to gloss over this with your line
The combined food board stopped in 1946, which certainly didn’t help, but the Labour government
which goes straight into some classic whattaboutism that you dont even directly describe, just trying to throw the blame to the labour government to diminish the impact of the US withdrawing food support.
And then on top of withdrawing that support they wanted repayments for loans started immediately after the war and had to coerced into a 5 year grace period so the UK could attempt to gather up the funds.
The UK (but more especially France) spent more time repressing the German economy post-war
Almost like Germany was the agressor and loser of a horiffic war and decimated UK industry in the process or something.
Then there was the Marshall Plan
Which is you read your own link:
which means an increase in GDP growth of less than half a percent.
you’ll see did basically nothing.
Then thats not even going over things like the US betrayal on technology sharing, specifically on nuclear programs and jet technology.
Or to cover the reverse lend lease project.
Or to start the conversation that had the US joined the war earlier there would not be as much of a need to rebuild these countries.
Or had the US not spent the early 20th century undermining the UK at every turn, the UK would have been in a much better position financially at the start of the war.
Or about how post war the US used its financial power over its European allies to dictate their foreign policy to the benefit of the US.
Basically, your view is quite biased and aims to paint the US as charitable saints instead of war profiteers.
which goes straight into some classic whattaboutism that you dont even directly describe, just trying to throw the blame to the labour government to diminish the impact of the US withdrawing food support.
The US didn’t withdraw food support - it was just reorganized and curtailed somewhat. In terms of the Labour government’s culpability, there were a variety of worker’s strikes - including dock workers - that resulted in tons of meat and fish going bad. The Labour government eventually ordered the Army to break the strike.
And then on top of withdrawing that support they wanted repayments for loans started immediately after the war and had to coerced into a 5 year grace period so the UK could attempt to gather up the funds.
No - the loans were issued then. The lend-lease was basically entirely forgiven. The loans always had a 5 year grace period.
The UK was bankrupt. You got loans from the US, Canada and others that you wish were gifts to stay afloat. At absurdly good rates - and additional aid in rebuilding from the Marshall plan.
you’ll see did basically nothing.
A half percent of GDP growth. It was 3% of the GDP of the countries. Did nothing is highly debatable.
Then thats not even going over things like the US betrayal on technology sharing, specifically on nuclear programs and jet technology.
Probably not the reason you had to ration in 1953 still, and I’m not sure what betrayal you’re referring to.
Or to cover the reverse lend lease project.
This was netted out from the lend-lease that was forgiven. You also got to keep all the equipment for rebuilding.
Or had the US not spent the early 20th century undermining the UK at every turn, the UK would have been in a much better position financially at the start of the war.
Do you have examples of this?
Or about how post war the US used its financial power over its European allies to dictate their foreign policy to the benefit of the US.
You make it sound like the UK was bankrupt because of their own mismanagement. They were basically repelling an invasion for years while being the USA’s stepping stone into the European theatre.
Acting like it’s noble to build up the country of the destroyed enemy, but not assist the ravaged ally in the same way is really odd.
We did assist that ravaged ally after, with an emergency loan with a very low interest rate, and the UK was the largest beneficiary of the Marshall plan dollars.
France was #2.
I don’t know where this revisionist animosity is coming from, but it’s not reflected in reality.
If you had kids in the household, you got more eggs on your ration cards, same with milk when it became rationed. Housewives would find ways to combine the entire households rations to feel like more for everyone. One egg and a rasher of bacon per person doesn’t fill anyone, but if you have a family of 4, suddenly four eggs and 4 rashers of bacon, in a potato bake/ flour stretched quiche is a filling meal, and you might get 6-8 serves from those 4 peoples rations.
The quality you can get with film never ceases to amaze me. I think the Oppenheimer movie poster was shot on film then scanned digitally, and the final image is like 11k pixels wide. There was also a 1980’s music clip I saw the other day on YouTube that was labelled as remastered in 4k or something, and it looked great for a remaster. Turns out it was simply re-scanned with modern tools and since the original film was so crisp it was all that needed to be done. No AI enhancement bullshit and all that.
Rescanning with modern tools is the exact definition of a remaster - Going back to the original ‘master’ copy and using modern techniques to produce a newer, better version :-)
Fortunately, some remasters even in gaming are the same: Going back to the source, maybe fixing some bugs, and then using the highest quality assets that were available at the time but had to be scaled down to make the game make sense for the hardware of the time. Unfortunately those are few and far between.
MP5A3s (possibly MP5A5s, but MP5A3s seem more overall popular with law enforcement, and full auto seems more like what USSS would choose.). I’ve never seen MP5Ks in USSS hands, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn about them.
Remington 870 PGO shotguns. Probably intended for breaching, but possibly for less-than-lethal rounds. The USSS agent in the photo is carrying 5.56mm magazines, making the shotgun clearly not the primary long weapon.
I kind of feel like it was chosen for the cool factor. Because there’s no way in the hell that a professional would look at all of the weapons they had on offer and choose that one.
Keeping in mind that the Uzi was concealed in a briefcase, making overall length a limiting factor, the choice is not strange for the early 1980s.
The Uzi has a ten inch barrel despite its very compact size, and a controllable 600RPM. And there’s no rule in real life that says it has to be fired on full auto.
The natural competition that comes to mind would be an MP5K. However it has no stock, a 4.5 inch barrel, and a higher full auto rate of fire. That variant had also only been introduced a few years before.
The USSS did eventually adopt MP5A3s/MP5A5s and P90s but those are carried more openly with less emphasis on concealment, at least within the restraint of a briefcase carry like in the Reagan era.
Other than the Uzi, many weapons would seemingly be too large for the desired concealment (carbines), too foreign (Skorpion machine pistols for example), or straight up inferior (MAC-10s). Of what’s left, the Uzi is not going to be outlandish in comparison.
I’m always so sad seeing the Scott expedition photos knowing that these guys in this image were doomed. THe British crew would have felt so horrible spotting the Norwegian flag at the South Pole, after what they went through. I’ve read the accounts and went through these beautiful images, it’s so harrowing to know their fate.
I seem to remember they found Scott’s notes, as well as documentation, including photos (plates?) of them at Amundsen’s abandoned tent when they found the bodies but can’t find a source just now.
Maybe I have my European biases, but it's amazing to me that the absurdity of eating restaurant food in your car rather than around a table is not striking to everyone.
Of course, in the late 40s this would be a fun gimmick - what is really absurd is that the concept of eating in your car seems to somehow have become normalized somewhere along the way. Again, seen with European eyes - of all cultural differences, there are others I struggle more with.
Oh, I don’t disagree! I absolutely hate eating in the car and would rather eat at someone’s home or a comfortable restaurant. I think many folks in the US would agree, but there are also many who do it to save time because we’ve allowed our infrastructure to be completely anti-mass transit friendly in the vast majority of the country.
It was a combination of eating in the car or getting it and taking it to one of our many parks that had picnic tables.
As a kid in the 70s/80s we regularly picked something up at the drive through and took it to a nearby city park when in town. On road trips we would pick it up and stop at one of the many roadside parks on the way to wherever we were going. No rating in the car because that was messy, even though I know other people did.
Also convenient to pick up on the way home once both parents were working and there wasn't time available to cook a full dinner many evenings, what with sports and other youth activities.
Yes, people ate in their cars too. But a lot of the popularity of druve throughs comes from being able to rush to the next thing with our overworked culture.
Your European bias is due to size and scale differences. In the post war period, America took the idea of the German Autobahn and ran with it in spades. The US has always been absolutely massive, and the Interstate Highway project allowed expansion on that same scale. It is not uncommon for people to live and hour or more away from work, and/or outside of “town”. This applies to both rural towns and city suburbs. Add to this the lack of mass transit, and it means that our car culture developed as an extension of the person, and of the home. The phrase “I live in/out of my car” is common here, and I’m talking about people that have an actual place to live. Just think in terms of spending 2-4 hours in your car each day, and it doesn’t sound so weird.
The same thing happens in Europe and Asia where there is long distance mass transit, the only difference is where it takes place. If you or your whole family are going to be on a train for 2 hours (or more), no one is going to blink an eye at taking a snack or meal on the train. They even serve meals. Cars don’t have a snack trolly or meal service, so the drive through and drive in became our version.
The old adage “a hundred years is old in the US, and 100 miles is a long distance in Europe” is the most appropriate lens to look at it.
It's certainly an element to it, combined with a lack of leisure time resulting from longer working hours and weaker unions. The power of the automobile industry in infrastructure design certainly didn't help either.
Still, the way we eat is so deeply ingrained in culture that I can't help but feel it goes deeper than this. People will not eat in their cars in Turin even though it's very much a car city. I'm from up north in Scandinavia where distances are greater (though more in time than in distance, as we travel on small winding roads rather than highways), and eating in the car still seems somewhat unheard of there.
Not that you're wrong - I think there's a profound change in culture that has taken place, but I agree the distances in the US would certainly be one of the mechanisms behind it.
I'm curious if people eat in their cars in Latin America now.
It’s not meant in a bad way. It’s just the concept is pretty funny IMO, and it’s crazy USA did this in 1949, when many countries, even countries that weren’t poor, were still rationing after WW2. My father was a child back then, and only 2 people in the small town he lived in had cars, and this is Denmark, we were not a poor country.
The US didn't have it's manufacturing plants bombed to ruble, in fact the US's manufacturing capacity grew enormously during the war, and it then suddenly had no war to supply so it could all suddenly be put toward building other things. This is one of the reasons why the US economy grew so much after the war.
The primary difference is what it’s all about. You can ignore similarities with other restaurants like there’s food involved and such. The fact they are sitting in their cars is the point.
She was a Flying P Liner. There is a film from 1929 documenting a trip around the horn on another of those ships called the Peking, great watch with some amazing footage. Around Cape Horn (1929)
That’s intense! Imagine tipping over the point of no return and falling over 3x your hight, all while your feet and hips are strapped in place. No bailing from the stilts, no tuck and roll, just catching yourself like your landing the most insane jumping pushup, that is if your even falling face first.
The workers also don’t look too young. I wonder if this is sort of like the case of there being no bold, old pilots. Just seasoned workers who learn never to push their luck when balancing all day, or just folks who really learned how to take a fall early in their life.
And who was casting the nets that kept on capturing people all the way into the 20th century?
One would imagine Arabs themselves wouldn’t want to “get their hands dirty”, would have the middleman ships full of slaves arrive at their ports and then have the auctions begin.
it also assumes that one person’s results on Google are the same as another’s. Sadly with the enshittification of the internet, we can’t take it for granted anymore.
Samuel Chidwick, 74, has donated photographs taken by his father Able Seaman Joseph Chidwick, born in 1881, on board HMS Sphinx off the East African coast in about 1907. The photographs, on display at the Royal Naval Museum, Portsmouth, Hants, show a sailor removing the manacle from a newly-freed slave as well as the ship’s marines escorting captured slavers.
Mr Chidwick, of Dover, Kent, said: “The pictures were taken by my father who was serving aboard HMS Sphinx while on armed patrol off the Zanzibar and Mozambique coast. “They caught quite a few slavers and those particular slaves that are in the pictures happened while he was on watch. “That night a dhow sailed by and the slaves were all chained together.
He raised the alarm and they got them on to the ship and got the chains knocked off them. “They then questioned them and sent a party of marines ashore to try to track the slave traders down. “They caught two of them and I believe they were of Arabic origin. “My father thought the slave trade was a despicable thing that was going on, the slaves were treated very badly so when they got the slavers they didn’t give them a very nice time.”
the slaves were treated very badly so when they got the slavers they didn’t give them a very nice time.
I may be reading into it, but I wonder if that’s that generations way of saying they beat the shit out of the slavers before turning them over to the authorities, without admitting to anything specific.
historyporn
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.