WWII Propaganda Popularized Myth That Carrots Help You See in the Dark (2013)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/a-wwii-propaganda-campaign-popularized-the-myth-that-carrots-help-you-see-in-the-dark-28812484/

by samclemens • 7 years ago

124 84 7 years ago

smithsonianmag.com

dang• 7 years ago

Thread from 2017: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13690676

And a nice weird carrot thread from 2009: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1191190

yakshaving_jgt• 7 years ago

Relevant QI part: https://youtu.be/0PzNDMCT0rg?t=1495

EDIT: Actually, a better relevant QI part: https://youtu.be/7Quyte7zN70?t=228

benj1113• 7 years ago

I don't think the article quite connects the dots.

As I understood it, it was mainly for homefront consumption, to encourage kids to eat their veg. Pilots are cool ergo they can make veg cool, so the theory goes.

stunt• 7 years ago

Britain was really good at running propaganda during WWII. I once read how they used radio to change the public support and opinion about Iranian King (Reza Shah) by telling fake and often scary stories about how he treated his people because he wasn't taking a side on second world war and Iran was neutral. After running the propaganda British and the Soviet invaded Iran to secure their oil fields as supply lines for allies and they replaced the king easily.

Jedi72• 7 years ago

I imagine they still are, and the fact we dont really recognise it is a testament to their success.

ced• 7 years ago

Can anybody explain to me how British & France culture felt about colonialism post-WWII? Especially for France, I would have expected that "being invaded and exploited by a foreign nation" would suddenly take a completely different moral outlook, but no, they resist Algeria separating. Why?

Semi-relevant Wikipedia:

When Britain reached out to the US asking for help in the war, the US offered help contingent on Britain decolonizing post WW2, and that agreement was codified in the Atlantic charter. The decolonization of Britain (post war) also meant that US and other countries would possibly have access to markets to sell goods that were previously under British Empire-which was not accessible to them then[86][87] To bring about these changes, the establishment of UN following World War 2 codified sovereignty for nations, and encouraged free trade. The war also forced the British to come to an agreement with Indian leaders to grant them freedom if they helped with war efforts since India had one of largest armies.[88] Also, following WW2, it was untenable for British to raise capital on its own to keep its colonies. They needed to rely on America and did via the Marshall Plan to rebuild their country.

cmrdporcupine• 7 years ago

Patriotism is one hell of a drug.

jcranmer• 7 years ago

Can anybody explain to me how British & France culture felt about colonialism post-WWII? Especially for France, I would have expected that "being invaded and exploited by a foreign nation" would suddenly take a completely different moral outlook, but no, they resist Algeria separating. Why?

It's completely different, you see, because Germany is a nation of militaristic Huns who are bent on nothing less than the destruction of civilization, while France is the bastion of the Enlightenment and bringing civilization to the uncivilized peoples. That sort of special pleading goes a long way, especially when the main proponents are trapped in an echo chamber and seriously believe that their colonizing missions are well-accepted by the native populations.

hylaride• 7 years ago

It's always different when YOU'RE the colonizer/invader bringing civilization.

The French tried harder than almost anybody else to maintain their colonial empire. The Vietnam war would have been several orders of magnitude less likely to have happened if France just granted French Indochina independence.

The independence of Algeria was also extremely traumatic for France (De Gaulle was almost assassinated by Pieds-Noirs (white french born in Africa)). It's a fascinating story that involves storied history that gets ingrained into your culture. Keep in mind, Algeria was a full department of France (but the nonwhites had less political power), so it'd be a lot like a state or province leaving in other countries. You might very well think it'd be disastrous socially and economically, not to mention absorbing the people who wanted to remain part of the country it's leaving (which is what happened, a lot of bitter french whites and natives headed to France, but never felt truly at home). It's best to just read up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War

The British wanted to keep their empire, but they were broke after the war. There were some futile attempts to keep what they had left (see the Suez crisis), but it rarely panned out. Most attempts at managed decolonization resulted in white minority-declared independence in places like Africa (See Rhodesia and South Africa).

There were several other attempts to maintain their colonies by more minor European powers that were invaded during the war as well, such as the Dutch (Indonesia), and Belgium (Congo).

desdiv• 7 years ago

Arguably the Suez Crisis was UK and France invading a sovereign state and trying to setup a new colony in 1956. Had they succeeded, I have no doubt they will attempt to setup new colonies all way into the '60s and '70s.

BurningFrog3• 7 years ago

Not an expert, but I think Algeria wasn't seen as a colony, but as the southern part of France proper.

the_af5• 7 years ago

Can anybody explain to me how British & France culture felt about colonialism post-WWII? Especially for France [...] they resist Algeria separating. Why?

The First Indochina War is also relevant and an enlightening example of France's post-WWII colonialism. And it lead to the Vietnam War.

As for Britain, apparently at least some factions, such as Churchill and some conservatives, favored the continuing existence of the British Empire and its colonies. It's so odd, looking at it with modern eyes, that the people who fought against the expansionism of Nazi Germany themselves thought it was their right to keep an empire with colonies. It would seem the "free" world wasn't free for everyone.

NeedMoreTea2• 7 years ago

American help was dependent on decolonisation. Yet many of those smaller islands quietly became American air bases, fuelling ports and what have you. In some regions, such as Japan, you see a continuing US military presence that was a post war rebuilding, but also what is sometimes called "soft empire".

The French colonial subjects had a little extra in terms of rights. If I remember right, a citizen of a French colony had as much right to go to and live in France as a Frenchwoman born in Paris. It wouldn't therefore be that surprising to think they saw Algeria as part of France, to be resisted as much as the independence of Cherbourg.

The British experience was a little more separated, but there was a era of decolonialisation during the 50s and 60s. They not only relinquished the colonies but had a clear policy of local majority rule in place before independence. At the same time the citizens were resenting the waves of immigrants arriving to help in the NHS, post-war rebuilding, and driving buses and trains - leading to today's Windrush scandal. Yet some immigrants had been in the UK, without too much problem, for centuries.

There's a certain consistency to the inconsistencies. If you follow me. :)

ceejayoz2• 7 years ago

Britain was really good at running propaganda during WWII.

It helps when you literally control the entire enemy intelligence operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Cross_System

After the war, it was discovered that all the agents Germany sent to Britain had given themselves up or had been captured, with the possible exception of one who committed suicide.

aitchnyu• 7 years ago

I heard the counter that Germany had ground based radar and would develop airborne radar later, so the propaganda was not helpful. Can somebody answer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_in_World_War_II#Germany

In February 1943, a British bomber containing a H2S radar was shot down over the Netherlands, and the 10-cm magnetron was found intact. In short order, the secret of making successful magnetrons was discovered, and microwave radar development started.
In June 1941, an RAF bomber, equipped with an ASV (Air-to-Surface Vessel) Mk II radar, made an emergency landing in France. Although the crew had attempted to destroy the set, the remains were sufficient for the German Laboratory for Aviation to discern the operation and its function. Tests indicated the merits of such a radar, and Wolfgang Martini also saw the value and tasked Lorenz to develop a similar system.

hollerith7• 7 years ago

During the Battle of Britain (1940) the Brits used a radar network to track German planes and successfully concealed the existence of the network from the Germans (using the carrot propaganda and other means).

The stations of the radar network were a string of about a dozen wooden towers, each about 100 feet tall, situated along the east coast of Britain. If the German knew that they were radar stations, they probably would have destroyed them and prevented Britain from rebuilding them. Without the radar network, the Royal Air Force probably would've been destroyed in the Battle of Britain, and the Royal Air Force was the only thing preventing the Germans from invading across the English Channel.

So if it helped keep the Germans ignorant of the British radar network until the Germans gave up trying to destroy the Royal Air Force in September 1940, it was monumentally helpful regardless of what happened after September 1940.

mhh__4• 7 years ago

The RADAR wasn't the key, the infrastructure around the RADAR was more important i.e. the command centres where fighters were dispatched from.

By this, I mean that the Germans would've had to be very very lucky to completely stop British radar (Chain Home was pretty rubbish by the time the Germans knew about it, so it could've been rebuilt very quickly) but bombing something that small would've been very difficult given that it was in operation and well covered by fighters

skgoa2• 7 years ago

and successfully concealed the existence of the network from the Germans (using the carrot propaganda and other means).

This is not true. The RADAR stations were well-known to the Germans, who bombed them from the very start of the BoB and devised many tricks to counter them.

benj1113• 7 years ago

The network was only outward facing though?

It still relied on spotters to keep track once they were over land.

zelos• 7 years ago

the Royal Air Force was the only thing preventing the Germans from invading across the English Channel.

Apart from the Royal Navy, of course. I think the general consensus now is that Germany couldn't have sucessfully invaded the UK, even if it had won the Battle of Britain?

mhh__4• 7 years ago

I spam this everytime WW2 engineering is mentioned and I'll do it again:

https://youtu.be/GJCF-Ufapu8

The secret war is a documentary about exactly that (amongst other things e.g. the magnetic mine): WW2 RADAR and radio navigation, and the intellectual battle between the Brits and Germans as they tried to locate beams and steal (genuinely!) entire German ground radar stations

It's very long, very detailed but well presented - in a style that assumes you aren't stupid.

nkurz• 7 years ago

Thanks for spamming --- I hadn't known about the documentary. I presume you are familiar with this classic book on the topic as well: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/r-v-jones/the-wiz...

rb808• 7 years ago

Ooof. 5 hours. Looks good though.

gshdg2• 7 years ago

I thought the propaganda was also used to hide the fact that the Brits were actually learning about a lot of these operations from spies rather than actually detecting the planes in real time? Thus protecting their spies.

saalweachter• 7 years ago

It makes this factoid even more hilarious if the propaganda campaign successfully created the misinformation without actually obfuscating the desired information, but it's kind of irrelevant to the question of whether they should have bothered with the attempt.

Propaganda is relatively cheap and doesn't consume a lot of resources more directly useful to the war effort. You have a half dozen guys coming up with ideas and doing the graphic design, some printers, and you can either let civilians or enlisted put up the posters when they don't have anything better to do.

At that level of cost, if any piece of propaganda makes an impact, it probably pays for the entire campaign.

vturner• 7 years ago

The article discusses the "victory gardens" which are quite interesting to me. Gardens I know of in the US zone 6 (without grow lights that help start the season early) are productive a few months of the year. Early spring you get leafy vegetables, but the bulk comes July/August and wanes in September. This schedule certainly doesn't seem like a major help in war time, so did they do something else? Preservation, better soil so food lasted longer,different planting varieties that produce spring - fall?

graeme2• 7 years ago

All food used to come from those growing periods. I think you grew certain kinds of tubers that could be stored over winter in a root cellar or made into preserves.

If you look at the picture on Wikipedia, potatoes and onions and carrots are prominent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden

That said I don't know the answer and I'd be curious what they did in winter in wartime.

Retric2• 7 years ago

Preservation is largely unnecessary. If a garden provides say 1 month of food for a family, then that family buys less food for that month. Being self sufficient was possible, but takes significant labor and land.

benj1113• 7 years ago

Brassicas (cabbage, kale) stand happily all winter, as do leeks. Certain types of lettuce and salad can stand all winter especially with a bit of protection. Potatoes, carrots, onions/garlic store happily over winter. Beans and peas can be easily dried.

Fall (Autumn) is when I would say the bulk of the harvest comes in. Maincrop Potatoes and carrots, beans plus 'tree crops', apples, pears, nuts etc.

Spring is always the problem (its called the hungry gap), you can't really grow anything of any size that soon after winter, and biannuals are wanting to flower.

The internet tells me I'm in zone 7, but quite exposed, so I guess not that different

"better soil" I think they actually tended to overcrop the soil, in the UK the yields were starting to fall in 44/45 because the soil was starting to become exhausted.

https://dig-for-victory.org.uk/

That has guides and stuff for gardeners of the time

bluGill• 7 years ago

In WWII refrigeration was still somewhat new, even if you were young enough to not remember life without them, you had neighbors and grandparents who did. In 1875 you had to live with the same growing months and store food for the rest - those ways were still personally remembered by many. In fact some people didn't get electricity until the 1950s and so they still were using the old ways because there was no other option. (My grandpa remembered his dad paying $600 to connect the farm in 1936 - about $12000 today so you can understand why most neighbors didn't)

asark• 7 years ago

Ask an old person :-)

Canning will go a long way, especially if you plan your garden with that in mind. Used to be (mid 20th c) just about every family grew veggies and canned them for the Winter/Spring, excepting rich city-folk.

Old recipes are built around what's in-season or what's probably still in your root cellar from last Summer/Fall. Get-anything-any-time is a very new thing—I remember an awful lot more produce falling out of availability in certain seasons as late as the '90s. You still see signs of it with price/quality variability and a few things that remain seasonal—so, cooking those old recipes at the right times of year still makes some sense.

NeedMoreTea2• 7 years ago

There were a lot of pamphlets and campaigns around storage, and rotating so your veggies lasted the longest possible time. We weren't quite as distant from the land and nature as we are today, so most had some connection with seasons, what to grow and when.

Here's one ww2 era guide to storing carrots, and how to make a clamp: http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/photos/storageguide.jpg

Most houses still had a larder or cellar, so there was more often a cool, dark area to keep boxes of onions, carrots, spuds, apples etc where they might keep for months. Far longer than most manage today, because few do anything beyond "throw them in the fridge" which can often shorten possible life!

There was even the Anderson shelter[1] that was the air raid shelter everyone could put in the garden. Designed for six, they were often handy tool shed and veggie storage for smaller families! Not much help if it was one of the many that tended to flood, but if you had a dry one...

[1] http://primaryfacts.com/506/anderson-shelter-facts/

gshdg2• 7 years ago

FWIW, severe vitamin A deficiency does harm eyesight. But past a certain healthy level it doesn’t help.

GuB-42• 7 years ago

Same idea for vitamin C.

Vitamin C deficiency cause fatigue but eating large doses of vitamin C won't help you stay awake. In fact, it is unlikely to do anything at all, you will just piss all the excess off.

praptak• 7 years ago

I believe it's still being prescribed for common cold, by similar logic w.r.t. the immune system.

The actual benefit is weak, unless you're a marathon runner or a soldier on subarctic exercise: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23440782

openasocket• 7 years ago

Vitamin A is actually worse because it is fat soluble, not water soluble like Vitamin C. If you consume too much Vitamin A, you don't pee it out, it gets stored in your fat cells. And because it stays in your system it can build up to toxic levels and you get hypervitaminosis.

Fun fact, there's a drug to treat severe acne called Accutane (isotretinoin). It's really for the severe cases of acne, because there are a ton of side effects (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotretinoin#Adverse_effects ) and if you get pregnant while on it there will be severe birth defects. Anyway, this drug is a retinoid, which means it is essentially just large doses of vitamin A.

TimTheTinker• 7 years ago

In fact, it is unlikely to do anything at all

Excess vitamin C breaks down L-tyrosine, which could contribute to thyroid and/or neurological issues in individuals with L-tyrosine deficiency (L-tyrosine is a precursor to thyroid hormone and L-dopa which is the primary building block of dopamine).

Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor.

logfromblammo• 7 years ago

Excessive vitamin C (at gram-scale doses) will also induce diarrhea. If you eat more than a kilogram of it, you might die, but anything between ~5 g and kilogram just blows out your colon.

The threshold for "excessive" is higher when sick. The dose that would send you to the porcelain on a normal day may be well tolerated with a sniffle.

tomhoward• 7 years ago

An earlier discussion 2 years ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13690676

(No, not a dupe, link given for interest purposes.)

pseudolus2• 7 years ago

It's fascinating how wartime propaganda assumes a life of its own. Another common myth spread by the English as a means of demeaning the leader of their then French enemy during the Napoleonic Wars was that Napoleon Bonaparte was short when in fact, and according to most contemporary descriptions, he was of average height. Yet to this day a cottage industry has been built around Napoleon's height that even persists to the present through our language - see "Napoleon Complex".

tc313• 7 years ago

My understanding is that Napoleon was of average height for a peasant, but was short compared to well-fed officers.

pseudolus2• 7 years ago

I believe the consensus was that he was approximately 170cm (5'7") which was, contemporaneously, fairly average. There is a surprisingly large number of Google hits relating to why he was perceived to be short but none that offers a definitive answer. The most compelling is that he was constantly surrounded by large bodyguards which gave the public the impression that he was not tall.

ru999gol• 7 years ago

I thought that was something Minecraft came up with

lootsauce• 7 years ago

The last image of Disney carrot characters is absolutely terrifying.

stcredzero• 7 years ago

My mother remembers getting lightly boiled potatoes which were let to cool, put on a stick, then sprinkled with sugar. (Korea in the 50's.) Unlike the little girls in the picture, she says she was delighted to get one of those.

With regards to WWII and night vision, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) at the time had the most effective non-radar night fighting training and techniques. Some of the worst defeats dished out by the IJN to the USN were due to their excellent night fighting and an over-reliance by the US on nascent RADAR technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWEEHOKcTnA

That said, the US radar-laid guns were a game changer. In some interpretations of the Battle off Samar, the US destroyers created such a high density of hits, that Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita mistakenly identified those ships as cruisers and mistakenly identified the whole group as much stronger, which ended up saving the landing force.

WalterBright2• 7 years ago

Radar-guided guns had the practical effect of doubling the firepower, due to more accurate shooting. This is an absolutely enormous advantage.

WWII Propaganda Popularized Myth That Carrots Help You See in the Dark (2013)

Related Stories