I saw Ken Burns on Bill Maher and I have a question about WWII

[Connonym]

I don't recall what it was that Burns said but it made me wonder, in WWII with the rationing and all that, was there an honest shortage of stuff or was the whole rationing thing and war bonds propaganda to make people at home feel like they were helping with the war effort?

[SteppingRazor]

1. There were severe shortages of gas, rubber, and many other necessities...

especially gas, since much of it was shipped from oversees and U-Boats made that a bit tricky. But all in all, I've never really heard it suggested that rationing was solely a propaganda effort. During WWII, the United States had approximately 16 million people serving in the armed forces. Think about how much money and equipment is needed to service the 160,000 troops we have in Iraq. Now multiply that by a hundred-fold and you can see why rationing on the home front was a necessity.

[NewJeffCT]

4. Not only that

Our population has about doubled since World War 2, so 16 million out of about 150 million vs 160,000 out of 300 million.

Or, almost 11% of the country vs 1/2 of 1%.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Exactly. When you put it in context, the idea that rationing was solely a propaganda effort...

seems a little ridiculous.

[eyepaddle]

9. And we were not only supplying our own 16 million, but also, to a large

extent our allies. During world war II the US prodcued something like 52% of all aircraft (that includes everybody, Axis and Aliies) and nearly two thrids of all ships.

As we were the only industrial power NOT to have large sections of our industrial and agricultural base wrecked, we really did have to supply all or part of everybody's needs.

This of course is also why the US was such an economic juggernaut through the 50s and 60s--if you needed something, we were the only game in town. By the 70s other countries were getting back online in meaningful ways.

So yeah, there were very real shortages--because so much of the output was spoken for.

[cobalt1999]

6. Exactly.

And the 16 million people was based on a population half the size of today.

[NewJeffCT]

2. I'm not sure there were legitimate shortages

But, I think it was also to ensure that at least a certain percentage of the industrial base remained devoted to the war and producing tanks, airplanes, ships, etc. Our country's ability to crank out aircraft carriers, tanks, jeeps, etc at such a high rate was a primary reason we won the war.

If the corporations were left to their own devices, they might go for more profitable businesses instead of aiding the war effort.

[raccoon]

3. Imagine how rationing would go over with Americans today. nt

[Connonym]

7. I can't remember which panel member on Real Time suggested it

but it was mentioned that perhaps if we would have been asked to buckle down after 9/11 instead of urged to go shopping that perhaps we might have been able to make a dent in our dependence on foreign oil. In all seriousness, I think when we're at war that we SHOULD be making personal sacrifices even if the only purpose it serves is to remind us every day that WE'RE AT WAR. I don't think the average person thinks about the war on a daily basis. If everyone had to sacrifice, ration or pay more taxes to pay for the war I think that the war would be over. As it is now, it's too easy to see it as an abstract or not think of it at all.

[zingaro]

8. I believe

Mike Gravel mentioned something like that a couple of weeks ago too. I haven't seen this weeks show, though.

[Dukkha]

10. it would help american's infamous short attention span

instead shit like this is the biggest worry for the spoiled brats in this country

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/10/16/bride.flowers.ap/index.html

[raccoon]

11. I agree. If Americans had to make some sacrifices, most Americans would be clamoring to

pull out of Iraq.