Vintage Things That Will NOT Disappear In Your Lifetime

[LizzieMaine]

They came out in the spring of 1941, but were evidently inspired by a product enjoyed by the British army. So you can stretch the idea a bit to say they did have kind of a military origin.

One does have to wonder just how many unwanted D-Bars were handed out to unsuspecting European farmers' daughters by magnanimous GIs in exchange for various considerations.

I'd like to try slowly crumbling a D-Bar into a cup of boiling water sometime. There does seem to be a lot of unconsumed 70-odd-year-old stock floating around.

 

[Fading Fast]

They came out in the spring of 1941, but were evidently inspired by a product enjoyed by the British army. So you can stretch the idea a bit to say they did have kind of a military origin.

One does have to wonder just how many unwanted D-Bars were handed out to unsuspecting European farmers' daughters by magnanimous GIs in exchange for various considerations.

I'd like to try slowly crumbling a D-Bar into a cup of boiling water sometime. There does seem to be a lot of unconsumed 70-odd-year-old stock floating around.

Wouldn't something in it go bad after 70 years?

Also, in addition to D-Bars, the army did supply massive amounts of real Hershey's chocolate bars? I know I've seen them in books and documentaries on WWII aplenty.

And to your point on exchange for services rendered - my God man, at least give her the real candy bar, how cheap can you be!?

 

[Harp]

One does have to wonder just how many unwanted D-Bars were handed out to unsuspecting European farmers' daughters by magnanimous GIs in exchange for various considerations...

Wins out over having a farmer offer a pair of sandals if he could shoot the rifle three times.

 

[Zombie_61]

...Also, if memory serves, M&M's were invented in WWII so that soldiers could have a candy that didn't melt. That all makes sense, but in almost all the documentaries I've seen and books I've read on WWII, Hershey bars are the chocolate candy that pops up. So, were M&M's distributed to our military in any meaningful amounts in WWII (and subsequent wars)?

I've also heard that story about M&Ms being developed specifically for the U.S. military, but a little Google research shows it has no actual merit. Forrest Mars Sr. and Bruce Murrie (son of Hershey Chocolate's President William F.R. Murrie) began producing them in 1941, but they were sold almost exclusively to the military after the U.S. officially entered the war. That might be when and where the story originates, i.e. people assumed they were made for the troops because they were the only people to whom they were readily available until the war ended, at which time they were made available to the general public again.

 

[Trenchfriend]

They came out in the spring of 1941, but were evidently inspired by a product enjoyed by the British army. So you can stretch the idea a bit to say they did have kind of a military origin.

One does have to wonder just how many unwanted D-Bars were handed out to unsuspecting European farmers' daughters by magnanimous GIs in exchange for various considerations.

I'd like to try slowly crumbling a D-Bar into a cup of boiling water sometime. There does seem to be a lot of unconsumed 70-odd-year-old stock floating around.

But, I don't understand, why this emergency-D rations must absolutely have been chocolate-related stuff, with oat-flour. Wouldn't it have been easier, just to make simple sweetened oat-cookies, like available on supermarkets worldwide, today??

 

[Edward]

Also, in addition to D-Bars, the army did supply massive amounts of real Hershey's chocolate bars? I know I've seen them in books and documentaries on WWII aplenty.

Yeah..... I've tried Hershey's. I'd rather try my luck with the D bar than eat another Hershey's ever again. Yuck.

 

[Harp]

But, I don't understand, why this emergency-rations must absolutely have been chocolate-related stuff, with oat-flour. Wouldn't it have been easier, just to make simple sweetened oat-cookies, like available on supermarkets worldwide, today??

My recall of C-rats are mainly Chesterfield cigarettes and date-nut rolls. And coffee. Since I had no use for the Chesterfields I usually traded for the roll.

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

My father told me when he was in China in WWII they would give their D-ration bars to Chinese kids, who loved them. This mystified the Americans, who couldn't stand them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Found on a survivalist forum, here's a recipe for making your very own D Bar. I haven't tried this, but I suspect that I will at the earliest opportunity. As a little kid I enjoyed chewing bits of Gulfwax.

1 & 1/3 oz unsweetened baking chocolate
1 & 1/3 oz powdered (confectioners') sugar
2/3 oz nonfat dry milk powder (the fine, powdery stuff)
1/4 oz cocoa butter OR canning paraffin (Gulf wax)
1/5 oz oat flour
1 drop vanilla extract

For the thiamine hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), I pulverized a thiamine vitamin capsule (available from most health food stores) and added a bare pinch.

First, cut chocolate coarsely into chunks or chips, and shave wax with vegetable grater

1. In a nonstick pan over VERY LOW heat, melt the chocolate
2. Whirl the sugar, oat flour and dry milk in a blender until it turns into a fine talcum-like powder
3. Shave the wax, measure out 1/4 oz, and stir into melted chocolate, along with drop of vanilla & pinch of thiamine
4. Add about half the melted chocolate to about half the sugar/oat flour/dry milk powder, mix well, and add back to pan; blend thoroughly over VERY LOW heat and then add in rest of sugar/oat flour/milk powder
5. Cook about 5-10 minutes, stirring frequently, then pour into mold (I used an Altoid tin) and place in freezer. The stuff was so thick, I had to press it into the mold with a heavy spoon. That's OK; Sam Hinkle, chief chemist for Hershey's Chocolate Company, recalled that the thick, gooey paste had to be kneaded, weighed & pressed into the molds by hand.
6. After about an hour, remove from freezer and allow to come to room temperature. Run knife along edges, and tap bottom of tin to remove block of chocolate
7. For authenticity, use serrated knife or hacksaw to cut a longitudinal groove and 3 cross-grooves, about 1/8 inch deep, in top of bar.

 

[Fading Fast]

Found on a survivalist forum, here's a recipe for making your very own D Bar. I haven't tried this, but I suspect that I will at the earliest opportunity. As a little kid I enjoyed chewing bits of Gulfwax.

You mentioned in an earlier post it was specifically designed to be unpalatable, was it too bitter and dry - my guess from the ingredients?

When Hershey tried to market it to the public, you noted that they "tinkered" with the formula to make it taste better - considering the lab skills companies like that have, I'm surprised they weren't successful.

Also, when they marketed it to the public, did they just go with the "tropical chocolate" bar angle or did they also tie it back to the US Military as an early version of Tang's marketing?

 

[LizzieMaine]

They gave it a very bland wrapper -- no Army logos, no palm trees, no helmeted GI crashing thru the jungle with a bayonet thrusting forward, none of the sort of stuff you'd expect today.

They sold it into the early '70s in variations of this wrapper, and it even found its way into the ration kit for one of the moon missions. Probably wasn't as tasty as Space Food Sticks, though.

As for the original D Bar, the consensus seems to be that it was too bitter and too hard -- usually GI's had to hack bits of it off the bar with the edge of a knife before they could eat it. It was so hard and dry that soldiers with bad teeth simply couldn't eat it. Given that rotten or absent teeth were a major problem in the WWII armed forces, this was an issue that required attention -- by all accounts the Tropical Chocolate version was easier to chew as well as better-tasting.

 

[Fading Fast]

They gave it a very bland wrapper -- no Army logos, no palm trees, no helmeted GI crashing thru the jungle with a bayonet thrusting forward, none of the sort of stuff you'd expect today.

They sold it into the early '70s in variations of this wrapper, and it even found its way into the ration kit for one of the moon missions. Probably wasn't as tasty as Space Food Sticks, though.

As for the original D Bar, the consensus seems to be that it was too bitter and too hard -- usually GI's had to hack bits of it off the bar with the edge of a knife before they could eat it. It was so hard and dry that soldiers with bad teeth simply couldn't eat it. Given that rotten or absent teeth were a major problem in the WWII armed forces, this was an issue that required attention -- by all accounts the Tropical Chocolate version was easier to chew as well as better-tasting.

Thank you for the additional info. Sounds as if the 1970's Boys From Marketing Hershey hired were off their game with this one. That throwback wrapper might appeal today, but then it was all bright colors and "new."

 

[Zombie_61]

...As for the original D Bar, the consensus seems to be that it was too bitter and too hard -- usually GI's had to hack bits of it off the bar with the edge of a knife before they could eat it. It was so hard and dry that soldiers with bad teeth simply couldn't eat it. Given that rotten or absent teeth were a major problem in the WWII armed forces, this was an issue that required attention...

 

[BlueTrain]

The War Department had a whole host of different rations available in WWII, some of which were developed for very specific purposes. There were rations for air crews, lifeboat rations and so on. Packaged rations for the military have requirements not necessary for most civilian purposes, unless you're a survivalist, I guess. A good shelf-life is obvious, adequate packaging to stand a lot of handling and storage under less than ideal conditions and, hopefully, something that doesn't weigh a ton, which rations in cans did. Palatability and nutrition are on the list, too, somewhere near the bottom.

Sometimes the stated requirements simply don't stand up to practical use. Chocolate and margarine that won't melt in the tropics won't melt in the mouth, either. Most of what we think of as army rations only date from WWII or a little earlier. Previously, soldiers were issued hardtack, flour, coffee and for some reason, salt was always included. Hardtack, sometimes called ship's biscuit, had been a mainstay for two hundred years but I think it largely disappeared between the wars.

Some armies had mobile field kitchens that went with the troops but they only provided the most basic of dishes, which varied from army to army. The US Army never had such things. Eating habits can be different from country to country and army rations always reflect the difference. Asian armies seem to run on rice and little else. The cartoonist Milton Caniff sometimes referred to the Chinese as "rice burners."

There is sometimes a stated requirement for an emergency ration and it sounds like the D bar was intended partly as such, although the US Army generally did not use that term. The basic requirement was compactness and insufficient taste to discourage eating when not necessary. It helps if the packaging is difficult to open, if only to keep it from being eaten. But like a lot of other things, so-called emergency rations are relied on for day to day use than intended. You can buy very similar products in outdoor stores but none of them are made by Hershey.

I don't recall any candy in C-rations but my memory isn't so good anymore and it was 50 years ago that I was in the army. The British include something called "boiled sweets" (hard candy) in their rat packs, along with things like kidney pudding and things only the British eat. They also issue halal and vegetarian rations and have for decades.

All this talk about food and it hasn't made me the least bit hungry.

 

[Zombie_61]

The War Department had a whole host of different rations available in WWII, some of which were developed for very specific purposes. There were rations for air crews, lifeboat rations and so on. Packaged rations for the military have requirements not necessary for most civilian purposes, unless you're a survivalist, I guess. A good shelf-life is obvious, adequate packaging to stand a lot of handling and storage under less than ideal conditions and, hopefully, something that doesn't weigh a ton, which rations in cans did. Palatability and nutrition are on the list, too, somewhere near the bottom...

Speaking of "specific purposes", a friend who spent nearly 30 years in the U.S. Army was once discussing the field rations he had eaten over the years. He said they had varying levels of edibility and that everyone had their favorites, but that nearly all of those rations had one thing in common--they would "stop you up" in areas where "restroom facilities" were few and far between. He did say they usually served that function quite well, almost completely eliminating the need for such "breaks", but that when the time came to "offload" you had damn well better be near a latrine.

 

[csmorris]

Speaking of "specific purposes", a friend who spent nearly 30 years in the U.S. Army was once discussing the field rations he had eaten over the years. He said they had varying levels of edibility and that everyone had their favorites, but that nearly all of those rations had one thing in common--they would "stop you up" in areas where "restroom facilities" were few and far between. He did say they usually served that function quite well, almost completely eliminating the need for such "breaks", but that when the time came to "offload" you had damn well better be near a latrine.

Same holds true today. I think the binding effect is more a result of the preservatives that give "food" a multi year shelf life than purely by design.

 

[Zombie_61]

Same holds true today. I think the binding effect is more a result of the preservatives that give "food" a multi year shelf life than purely by design.

Either way, he said they were very effective...until they weren't.

 

[St. Louis]

I'm not positive that this is the right thread, so I can delete & move if you feel it would be better someplace else. Here's an editorial by a book review editor that really speaks to me. Although this lady isn't a kindred spirit (I don't think she lives a vintage lifestyle) her thoughtful observations on returning to "old fashioned" technology is quite interesting. I've never fully succeeded in explaining to anyone why I live with 1930s / 40s appliances, furniture, clothing, and household items, because I don't have a concrete reason -- I just do it because it makes me happy. But this editorial helps make a case for me, and I'll definitely quote it next time someone asks:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/sunday/technology-downgrade-sanity.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

 

[Fading Fast]

I'm not positive that this is the right thread, so I can delete & move if you feel it would be better someplace else. Here's an editorial by a book review editor that really speaks to me. Although this lady isn't a kindred spirit (I don't think she lives a vintage lifestyle) her thoughtful observations on returning to "old fashioned" technology is quite interesting. I've never fully succeeded in explaining to anyone why I live with 1930s / 40s appliances, furniture, clothing, and household items, because I don't have a concrete reason -- I just do it because it makes me happy. But this editorial helps make a case for me, and I'll definitely quote it next time someone asks:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/sunday/technology-downgrade-sanity.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Interesting article. I'd emphasize something she touches on: I have (and maybe many do) a desire to manual feel or at least conceptualize how something works. One of our overhead (1920s) kitchen lights stopped working a few months ago. I was able to go up, take it out, replace the socket and put it back all with a screwdriver and a rudimentary understanding of how it and electricity work.

In our closet, coincidentally, a few weeks back, the new light fixture we had installed stopped as well. When I disconnected it from the wall, I realized it was all solid state circuitry and there was nothing I could see to fix. Heck, it was $18, so I bought a new one, installed it and moved on - but it was much less satisfying than truly fixing the kitchen one.

Same thing with cars. As a kid, I could do basic repairs in the '70s to the cars from the '60s and earlier, but it got harder after that as the complexity multiplied and the digital stuff required specific tools and diagnostic readers. Beyond not having those, it was no longer intuitive / you no longer "felt" it.

In an odd way, it's the reverse when I trouble shoot my computer - I'm glad I got it "fixed -" I have enough understanding of hardware and software to do a bit more than the basics, but it's not really satisfying. I didn't see the broken filament, I didn't screw the wire in securely, I didn't clean the "gunk" out so that the connection would work - I cleared a cache or uninstalled / reinstalled an "app" and it worked because the underlying code liked it better - whatever.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Very good article. I've been living like this pretty much my whole life, so I don't really know any other way of doing things and it seems perfectly normal to me. It has nothing to do with "nostalgia" -- but every once in a while someone who doesn't know me well will stop by my house and their eyes will bug out and they'll start babbling. Why should it be seen as strange that someone prefers a hands-on approach to "no user serviceable parts inside" is something *I* will never understand.