Soviet Union's Rationing System

Rationing systems were a key component of most of the combatant powers’ answers to the hunger question. Some rationing systems—like those of the United States and Great Britain—relied heavily on the reduction of consumer choice. Germany had a rationing system, but relied much more on the idea of exporting hunger. The Soviet Union’s rationing system was disorganized, and so was Japan’s. Both nations reduced quality and choice for the consumer.
The basis of the American rationing system was to make all civilians unhappy by reducing consumer choice. As bleak as that may sound, higher ups in American military and government realized that is was the only way to keep the home front united. The United States could not afford to upset its lower class
too much, but it could afford to make its middle and upper classes a bit less comfortable than usual.
The middle class in Great Britain hated the country’s rationing system.
Granted, that was the way it was designed. Those who benefitted most from this system were the working-class individuals. Under the British rationing system, all children received a carton of milk every day, the idea being that the government was nourishing the next generation of soldiers. However, this had another unintended effect also. It gave the appearance of lowering class barriers. All children received the milk, so none of them were labeled according to which economic class they belonged to. This blurring of the lines between classes generated a unified support for the war.
The rationing system in The Soviet Union was far from ideal. Rationing points were given based on occupation, health, and gender. This combined with inflation and a lack of goods caused a rampant black market. Stalin knew about this black market, but turned a blind eye to it. First, because if he had shut down the market, he would have run the risk of breaking his connection with the people. Secondly, because the black market provided goods that were otherwise unavailable, so inflation in the Soviet Union remained at a moderate
level.
The rationing system in Germany was similar to America’s and Great Britain’s in that it issued a certain number of stamps to civilians for certain food items. The difference occurs when looking at consumer choice. Though it was reduced, it was not reduced to the level of The United States or Great Britain. This is because Hitler was obsessed with keeping the home front happy. He thought the home front would win the war for him, and he did not want to upset the civilians. Margo Nagel is quotes in Collingham’s book saying, “I do not recall yearning for something that was not available…I do not recall anyone who said they were hungry during the war” (218). What this woman was not aware of, however, is that the only reason he was able to keep consumer choice high, was because of the mass murder of “useless” mouths.
Japan’s rationing system did not begin until 1941 (Collingham, 279). Along with scarcity of food, came terrible quality. Also, Japanese civilians had to wait in lines for hours at a time to receive their rations until the government passed that job down to neighborhood associations. Japan suffered the scarcest food options, and because of the loss of so many nutritional elements, many of Japanese were malnourished by the end of the war. Others were starving. Looking at soldiers’ meals within each of the combatant nations is indicative of the ideals and material resources held by that nation. Regardless of which power it observed, all of them believed that the bulk of the county’s food should be allocated to the soldiers. Because this is the case, looking at soldiers’ meals also helps to uncover the situation for civilians at home as they were always fed less than the soldiers.
American soldiers were the best fed in World War II.
While much of this is to do with the relative material advantage that The United States had over the other powers in the war, it is not the sole reason for American soldiers’ access to food. Over half of the American soldiers fighting in the war had been drafted, which translates to the fact that, given the choice, many of the men fighting for The United States wouldn’t have been there. American officials knew this, and they knew that to keep their men fighting, they had to at least be well fed. Material circumstances aside, American soldiers were fed the best because they wanted to be on the battlefield the least.
Japan’s soldiers were the worst fed in the war. Because the powers fed soldiers better than civilians, this initial statement means that Japanese civilians were starving. Looking at Japanese military ideals gives these facts some context. Japan’s culture during World War II was not one centered in individualism. Rather, the individual only existed to provide—and at times die—for the
emperor.
Great Britain, The Soviet Union, and Germany had similar rations for their soldiers. When Great Britain or The Soviet Union faced a food shortage, The United States usually stepped in to help. Still, soldiers within both nations were often malnourished. Germans faced hunger more often, but were fed well enough due to their exportation of hunger. These three powers fall in the middle of the scale when it comes to soldiers’ rations.
There are two categories that each of the combatant powers fall into when it comes to the state of their society—one of plenty or one of scarcity. The United Stated and Great Britain fall into the realm of plenty. Though for America this is much truer. The Soviet Union, Germany, and Japan were all societies of scarcity. The ways that the powers responded to which category they fell into is indicative of their ideologies while fighting the war.
The United States, compared to the other powers fighting in the war, was a society of plenty. American rhetoric had long been based in abundance, and because American soldiers always had what they needed, they did not feel the need to take from the disenfranchised, but rather to give to the hungry. Great Britain was much like the Americans in that they had lived in relative profusion. Though they did not have the excess to give as the American’s did once the war began. Great Britain did not confiscate the land of other countries or intentionally starve people to satisfy the hunger of its civilians.
Unlike the United States and Great Britain, The Soviet Union, Germany and Japan did not have an abundant society. Rather, theirs were rooted in scarcity. This translated to patriotism in The Soviet Union. Civilians felt that they needed to protect what was theirs, and that a society of abundance could be achieved with victory. In Germany, this scarcity led to the belief that those who deserve the resources—in Hitler’s case those deserving individuals would have been the Aryan race—should receive them, even if that means the resources must be taken by force. Japan’s scarcity resulted in much of the same thinking. As the war—and the hunger—want on, the Japanese government took more and more drastic measures. Ultimately, the idea was to take from those who don’t deserve the resources, and to provide for those who do—the Japanese. These components—agriculture, exportations of hunger, rationing systems, soldier’s meals, and perceptions of their own society—reveal each nation’s ideology during World War II. America managed an agricultural boom, and because it saw itself as a society of abundance, was willing to share that food with those in need. The United States goals within rationing was to create a system that was equal for everyone. These components demonstrate the country’s democratic ideologies—perhaps not always making everyone happy, but always fair. Great Britain asked for small sacrifices from all its civilians in its efforts with food. The British ideology reveals itself to be much like the American’s in this way, rooted in fairness. The Soviet Union’s communist ideals headed the availability of food in the nation, but because of the nation’s call for patriotism, civilians continued to suffer through the hunger for the cause. Germany and Japan are very similar in that their authoritarian governments drove most of their food-related decisions. The solution to the agriculture problem was to gain more land. Both nations tried to export hunger because they felt others should be starved before their own nation. This contributes to the idea that in a society of scarcity, a nation demands that its need come before all others. This all leads to the conclusion that, when the combatant powers were deciding who would go hungry, they were deciding who would win the war.