Bullets and Booze: How WWII Changed America's Drinks [16:30]

YouTube ^ | November 1, 2024 | The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered

[SunkenCiv]

Eighty-two years ago, on November 1, 1942, America's distilleries were faced with a second prohibition, this time coming from the War Production Board. No more liquor would be produced by the nation's distilleries, as the entire efforts of their industry was needed to produce war alcohol. It is one of the many ways that America's booze was affected by the World War. 

Bullets and Booze: How WWII Changed America's Drinks | 16:30 
The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered 
1.64M subscribers | 150,246 views | November 1, 2024

[Liz]

Coca Cola’s World War II logistics built 64 portable bottling plants for the troops.

In 1941, company president Robert Woodruff famously committed to ensuring every service member could buy a Coke for a nickel, regardless of what it cost the company to deliver it.

The company complied, constructing 64 plants across Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific. To operate them, Coca-Cola sent 148 civilian employees into the field. These men were given the official U.S. Army title of “Technical Observers,” wore military uniforms, and had the same privileges as commissioned officers. Their sole job was to keep the bottling lines running to boost the morale of Allied soldiers.

These military-adjacent plants distributed over 5 billion bottles of Coca-Cola. While the plants were military assets, their strategic placement became the foundation for Coca-Cola’s massive global expansion in the post-war era.

In the post-war decades, Coca-Cola created hiring programs and joined corporate coalitions .....such as the American Corporate Partners initiative..... to actively recruit and transition veterans into the civilian workforce.

[Freedom4US]

I am sorry, but you people are simpletons. Do you really think that the Nazis cared how many people died creating their “vengeance” weapons?
——

Nobody suggested the Nazis “cared” numbnuts.

Since you’re so smart, name another weapon in history that killed more people during construction than were ever killed by the weapon itself.

[alexander_busek]

I always credited Germany for figuring out how to make alcohol into a weapon with their V1 and V2 rockets.

The V2 burned ethanol - but the V1 used gasoline (about 640 liters) as fuel.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

We had beer and wine available, just not the hard stuff. Beer was in bottles, no cans. As beer was being shipped to the troops, there were short supplies on the home front.

Are we still talking about WWII?!

How old are you, anyway?

Regards,

[Does so]

I wonder how many Allied troops were gunned down by the enemy, detected by the odor of lit cigarettes?

[Empire_of_Liberty]

Probably, COVID.

[Freedom4US]

LOL!!

Nope. Good try, though!

[Freedom4US]

My Uncle said they knew it was gonna be a bad day whenever they could smell Schnapps in the air drifting across the line. Won’t be long now.

He also allowed they had excellent small arms ammunition, their smokeless powder being nearly undetectable when fired. Coupled with excellent camouflage they were known for, he said it was almost impossible to know where to shoot back sometimes. USGI gunpowder, on the other hand, was extremely dirty and smoky, and gave away position. I could tell he was kind of pissed off about that.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

I thank you for the detailed reply.

I think that the question is one of availability, more than restriction. Germany stole a lot of grain from the Ukraine, during the war, and the V2 and distillation into alcohol, was a way to make use of it. I think of the V2 as a terror weapon, more designed and used to demoralize the British, than to inflict casualties.

Mr. Busek may also provide the answer to the use of V1s and V2s. Gasoline was in short supply, and its costliness probably offset the cheap V1 design.

Kerosene and LOX is still used in rockets, today. It definitely has more kick than Alcohol and LOX, but it has to be available.

[NorthMountain]

Kerosene and LOX is still used in rockets, today

Energy stored in hydrocarbon and related compounds is mostly in the carbon, not the other elements. Heavier fuels are more energy dense than lighter fuels. A major issue with rocket engines is ensuring consistency of the fuel in order to ensure clean burning; carbon build-up in the engine (called "coking") results in catastrophic failure. RP1 is the most highly refined form of kerosene (much more so than JET-A, No2 Diesel, or heating oil) to ensure consistency.

"Ignition" is a great, "accessible", historical treatment of the development of liquid rocket fuels. The author was intimately involved in the process, and wrote it while the whole matter was fresh in his mind. The only thing missing is the very recent move to liquid methane as a rocket fuel.

[Lurker]

THG is amazing.

L

[Freedom4US]

I think of the V2 as a terror weapon, more designed and used to demoralize the British, than to inflict casualties.
———

Eisenhower, among others, mentioned had they focused on V2 production just a slightly earlier in the timeframe, D-Day would have been a dicey affair.

[alexander_busek]

Empire_of_Liberty: Germany stole a lot of grain from the Ukraine, during the war, and the V2 and distillation into alcohol, was a way to make use of it.

The 75% ethanol-water mixture for the V2 came from the fermentation of potatoes - this had been a deliberate choice based largely upon availability concerns. By the time the V2 came online (namely: after D-Day), the Germans were in a complete rout on the Eastern Front, so Ukrainian grain would have been nigh impossible to come by anyway.

SunkenCiv: Methanol and LOX was the combo used in the V2 [...]

The V2 was fuelled with ethanol (specifically: a 75% ethanol-water mixture); and LOX was the oxidant.

SunkenCiv: Not sure what fuel the V1 used.

The V1 was fuelled with gasoline (specifically: Leichtbenzin Oktan 75).

Incidentally, some folks here have been incorrectly conflating the V1 (which was a jet-powered cruise missile - driven specifically by a Pulsstrahltriebwerk) with the V2 (which was a ballistic rocket) under the collective heading of "rocket." Just wanted to clarify that that was not the case.

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

Eisenhower, among others, mentioned had they focused on V2 production just a slightly earlier in the timeframe, D-Day would have been a dicey affair.

Really? I dispute that! The V2 was far too inaccurate to effectively use against the amphibious landing forces of D-Day.

The V2's targeting inadequacies limited its use to striking cities.

Besides being inherently inaccurate, the V2 rocket needed navigation data; the kind that couldn't be obtained "on the fly" for newly-discovered and dynamic targets like advancing armies in the first days of D-Day. Everything had to be precisely calculated back at headquarters. The launch ramps were mobile, and their planned position likewise had to be known before-hand.

Can't find the actual numbers right now, but I don't think that more than TEN were ever launched on any given day (under the best of conditions). And ten V2 rockets would not have seriously impacted D-Day.

I seriously doubt that Ike said that.

Regards,

[Lurker]

BFL

L

[Freedom4US]

“I seriously doubt that Ike said that”

I know this sounds crazy and all, but you could, you know, look it up. LOL

Jeeze Louise

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks!

[alexander_busek]

I know this sounds crazy and all, but you could, you know, look it up. LOL

Yes, it sounds crazy.

It is namely incumbent upon the person stating the claim to provide the evidence.

It would greatly lower my estimation of Gen. Eisenhower if he had said that.

Each V2 had construction costs of roughly ℛℳ 100,000 (roughly the same as the cost of a Panzerkampfwagen V Panther), and - on average - killed 2-4 people at the target (while killing more during fabrication due to the unbelievably cruel and inhumane conditions of the slave labor).

Regards,

[Freedom4US]

It is namely incumbent upon the person stating the claim to provide the evidence
——

It is not incumbent upon me to do your homework, however.