The Taste of War: World War II and The Battle for Food by Lizzie Collingham examines the events of World War II from the vantage point of food consumption patterns and national food policies. From the beginning of her text, Collingham identifies why famine and starvation are not typical focal points for books on the second World War, "'Death by famine lacks drama. Bloody death, the deaths of many by slaughter as in riots or bombings is in itself blood-bestirring; it excites you, prints indelible images on the mind. But death by famine, a vast slow dispirited noiseless apathy, offers none of that'" (1). As she notes, at least 20 million people died from complications related to food shortages and not having enough to eat. These 20 million people, who died quietly and often without recognition, are more than the 19.5 million military deaths, yet when we think about World War II we don't often separate them in our mind. Collingham's book works hard to bring to light the "total war" situation of World War II (as it was fought on multiple fronts and around the globe).
She also works hard to identify the exploitation that both the Axis and the Allied forces engaged in to bring more food to their citizenry and, more importantly, military. Before reading The Taste of War, I had never connected Hitler's food policies with the extermination of the Jews and other "undesirables." Before this book I didn't know about the Bengal famine, in which millions of Indians died because of poor government planning and inaction. Churchill, Collingham points out, reacted in eerily similar ways to Hitler when it came to food allocation and appropriation.
Over the five hundred or so pages that comprise Taste, these historical facts continue to mount. By the end of the book one feels his preconceptions of "good" and "bad" during WWII upended. Everyone, it seems, did terrible things--either directly or indirectly--to secure enough food for their priorities. Sometimes it was through selfishness, as in the Americans refusing the continue rationing even a few months after the end of the war, resulted in Europe teetering on the edge of famine in the post-war period. Other decisions, made out of desperation and martial philosophy, such as the Home Islands refusing to send in additional supplies to Japanese troops as they fought in the Pacific resulted in wide-spread death and acts of cannibalism, not to mention the terrorizing of native island populations who were also not sufficiently equipped to supply their own food (298).
Collingham focuses on each of the main countries in the Axis and Allied powers--their food policies, their scientific research into caloric consumption, and the resulting circumstances to these factors as the war dragged on--she identifies black market mechanics and how they are a detriment to government rationing systems in that they hold back surplus that could otherwise be allocated fairly and at a fraction of the cost. She even offers a case study comparison between two countries under German occupation--Sweden and Denmark--the latter of which did not have a strict appropriation policy and therefore contributed more butter, eggs, and meat to the Germans than the Swedes whose produce was mercilessly commandeered.
The after-war period is yet another place where Collingham contributes a comprehensive overview of the aftermath of World War II on food consumption patterns, as well as the scientific innovations and food growth advancements that increased the overall caloric intake of many developed nations.
This book helped me to think about Nazi racial policy and land acquisition of Eastern Europe through the lens of food security. If, as in Britain, food is a basic right and one that is necessary for boosting military production and war morale, then caloric intake is not only a biological imperative; it is also a nationalistic one. It's chilling to see how countries on both sides of the war rated each citizen and their "caloric worth." In England colonies took a backseat to British civilians and military. In the US, everyone took a backseat to Americans. In Germany each country under occupation had their own designation and purpose. In the Soviet Union the years of hunger after the Revolution left the population depleted but able to continue to work and fight on less than a third of what the Americans ate in the war period. Fairness and logic often had nothing to do with food allocations. At times, as in the blockades that punished Axis occupied territories like Greece, spite and martial advantage was the main motivating factor.
The Taste of War shows how food is political as much as it is life sustaining. Now, when I pour oil onto my stirfry, or eat a piece of bread, I think about how these goods I take for granted were rationed and regulated until, in certain countries, there was nothing left to ration or regulate. Starvation might not be a glorious death, but as Collingham demonstrates, it ought to be one that is historicized in the context of total war.
.
Thanks for the recommendation!
ReplyDelete