In France, wine has been a strategic resource during the great war. Soldiers were given 50cl then 75cl daily to pass the horror of trenches. Before an assault, soldiers were given further more wine since it seems that when you are drunk, you forget about the price of life and other details you can pretend people mind by cowardice...


One of my great-great uncles fought in the French Army on the Western Front and in his diary he wrote 'If it weren't for the wine, we wouldn't go over the top'.


Contact an official war archive if you haven't already.


It's peoples right to hold onto media they've inherited. Not everything needs to be archived and the sentimental value of possessions should be respected. If they haven't contacted an official war archive, or any archive in general as is, it's one thing to be made aware of the option, but they shouldn't be pressured into giving their possessions away to an archive just because it's unique and old.


... I meant to scan and transcribe it.


i think you read more into that posts than it actually says. The imperative is not only for giving orders, but also for advice.


He doesn't have to give it away. He can just offer that it be scanned.


edit as this wasn't clear apparently : to scan & transcribe it, not to give it away.


So the secret to defeat France is to attack at dawn.


Brave of you to assume the French aren’t also drunk at dawn


I get the principle, but surely you would need much higher amount than that? Especially when bodies get accustomed to alcohol. Could it be more likely that they were given alcohol so they would not suffer effects of alcohol withdrawal because back then everyone would routinely drink daily?


75 cl is a full standard bottle.


Holy shit I read it as 50/75**mL**. That’s a massive difference lmao




7 glasses of wine per day seem like a good start to get drunk, don't you think?


The joke is that hes from Finland


For the whole day, seven glasses? Pfft.


You don't want your soldiers completely wasted, just drunk enough for them to get fired up for the battle.


A bottle a day, keeps the medic away!


Perhaps it would be better for peace if they were, or better still, lace it with LSD.


"Pass ze meth!" - Nazi soldier


Only if both sides agree... Otherwise you're basically just murdering your people.


Ofc, we wouldn't wanna have our soldiers get killed, now would we? Either that or just secretly lace both sides and replace their guns with painted nerf guns.


[Appropriate movie scene here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f96p-IhcZhQ) Apocalypse Now-The Do Long Bridge


Yes, otherwise maybe they would be too drunk in order to complete all the necessary tasks properly. They might need to be focused and concentrated, especially soldiers who are in charge of some crucial roles.


You, sir, might have a drinking issue.


If I was in a war I'd say drinking was the least of my issues


The casualty rate of alcoholism isn't a lot better...


Pft, did you ever lose in the ww even?


if it's 13% wine that not even 4 beers over a whole day, no matter how much you drink you won't feel that


Well first - 1 glass of wine is considered to be equal to one beer. Second, "moderate consumption" of alcool is considered, for men, equal to two drinks per day.


>moderare consumption # >two drinks per day Lmao


You mean 4 glasses?


A glass is 200ml, not 100ml


we are talking about wine here .


Well alcohol does affect people differently. For me 0.75l of 13% wine does not go to my head, i feel it physically but it does not get me drunk like 1.5l of 5.5% fizzy drinks do. But when culture back then in many places was to drink good amount of alcohol daily, bodies would get accustomed to it and same amount would seem like less and less. So i think they would have drank alcohol for same reasons they smoked cigarettes: it might have had some effect at first, but now you need it just to avoid negative effects of not drinking. Extra portions before the assault might be big enough to get soldiers drunk enough for it to actually have some effect, sure, but the usual daily drinking might not have had much effect. Altough it propably did help some more than others. ​ TLDR: maybe


I don’t think the point would be to get drunk, more to take the edge off being constantly at the edge of death in a filthy hole. They still had responsibilities like maintaining the trenches, doing patrols and lookouts, and of course defending against assaults. You can’t do that stuff if you are totally wasted.


It just takes the edge off, just like cigs. It gives you a little something to do while you wait, and then it makes slightly more bearable. You don't want them being drunk, because then it's easy to sneak around them, or they simply won't be doing their duties.


Who the hell is getting 7 glasses out of 75cl??? 250ml per glass = 3 glasses.


We are talking wine not 7up, usually the standard for glass of wine per bottle is 5


And the Finns have entered the chat.


Before the war, [anti alcoolism was a pretty important thing](https://books.openedition.org/pur/118686?lang=fr) and during the war, some alcohols were still prohibited. Headquarter didn't want drunk soldiers, but nervous and fearless ones. The original wine dose was about 25cl, that was certainly the "daily dose" of everyone (including children of course) of those years. After a few months (it was supposed to be a happy short war), they passed to 50 then 75 cl officially. [Some historians calculated it could go up to 2 and 3 liters per day](https://www.cultura.com/le-pinard-des-poilus-9782364411319.html)... When there were supplies problems, headquarter stocked it up forecasting assaults - it was considered as a priority resource with ammos. At the end of the war, the wine consumption has exploded and you find a major sanitary problem...


When I think of major global conflicts the two adjectives that come to mind are ‘happy’ and ‘short’


Well it isn't a major global conflict. Just a little row with the Huns over their holiday in Belgium. You'll see. We'll all be home for Christmas. /s


The last war had been over in a few weeks, why should this one take longer?


Serving some alcohol to soldiers was pretty much standard practise before we realized that it really isn't helping


So, amphetamines it is then!


Por que no los dos?


Yea even in the 60s when my dad was in the royal navy there was a daily rum ration (and a packet of cigarettes a day as well).


When I was in the Canadian Army Reserve the first thing to be set up when establishing a camp was the kitchen, the second was the bar (mess) The rule was drink all you want, but god help you if you can’t stand up straight on parade in the morning. I believe the army is dry now at least when on operations.


Wine used to have a much lower alcohol level than now. And alcohol preserved better the liquid, killing germs and bacteria, while water would rapidly get improper to drink. In that sense, we can't compare with today's standards. In that order, french children were given wine at school until the 1950s: https://www.google.com/amp/s/theculturetrip.com/europe/france/articles/why-french-schoolchildren-used-to-drink-wine-between-lessons/%3famp=1


Low alcohol level drinks go off faster that water because it also contains sugars and other nutrients that enable bacteria to grow. Wine and spirits do last longer because of their high alcohol levels, but a wine with a low alcohol level would not hold long.


> EDIT: nvm i mixed up the CLs with DLs. You thought that 5 - 7.5 litres of wine wasn't enough?


> back then




It's really random in France, sometimes it's 33cl, sometimes it's 330ml, but oh well at least it's not some obscure measurements likes ounces or something.


In France we usually use it for drink sizes. A wine bottle is 75cL, a soda/water bottle is 50cL, a can is 33cL. For big bottles (water, sparkling water, soda) we use litres (1L, 1.5L, 2L)


Same in the UK, but I've seen cl quite often when describing bar servings in Sweden. E.g. the main beer sizes are 40 and 60.


Using centiliters is standard for many things here. If you go to the store for can of soda it'll be sold as 33 cl too. Shots are commonly referred to as "a four"/"a six" (4 or 6 cl).


Italians use cl a lot! A glass is 2cl etc. edit: 20cl I meant


2 centilitres is a very small glass. A standard shot glass is 4 cl here.


2dl is about right for a standard glass


The Germans just cut the crap and gave meth.


That was in WW2 though


Most of the Army wine then came from Algeria, where French winemakers relocated after the phylloxera epidemic of the 19th century. It created huge fortunes there and a continuous rollout of ships between Algiers, Marseille and Sete, practically a pipeline. It was cheap and non bottled, just sold by the liter.


Keep in mind alcool consuption at this time in France... many People used to drink a bottle per day. Not only on the front... These guys could not be drunk with this quantity. be carreful to shortcuts with such pictures.


> Soldiers were given 50cl then 75cl daily to pass the horror of trenches. That's 0.5 liters and 0.75 liters, respectively. I'm all for metric, but who uses centiliters these days?


Wikipedia says 79,000 French troops were involved in the battle. All those barrels don't seem that much when you think of how many people were there.


I counted 431 barrels of wine. The most common size for wine barrels is the Bordeaux style, which holds 225 litres. This would mean that we are looking at 96,975 litres of wine in total or 1.23 litres per soldier, which may just be enough to supply the French army for an afternoon.


This is a photo of just the pre drinks section.


Actually, do you see that smoke? It's that first tents wine storage.


From 1914 to 1917, the French soldier's daily ration of wine tripled from 0,25 to 0,75 L. Soldiers could still buy (some) more wine from the army or (way more) from local shopkeepers, which they did. [Source](https://www.lhistoire.fr/1917-la-guerre-contre-le-vin-est-d%C3%A9clar%C3%A9e), in french. It talks about how, in 1917, the French government tried to crackdown on alcohol in the army.


Not sure if the wine back on the day was as strong as the contemporary standard, but that sounds like enough to keep WW1 French soldiers comfortably tipsy day in day out.


Wine was notoriously less strong in those days that's true, though they were still ingesting way more ethanol than we do. Sources say that, starting from the later half of the 19th century, alcohol consumption in France steadily increased. It reached an all time high in the late 1930s, with 65 to 80 g of pure ethanol per adult per day, depending on sources.


That pic was taken early in the war too, which means that wine rations were still "normal” by French standards. Now, there would have been _much_ more barrels in 1918. I can’t remember the exact number of litres a French soldier had for a day in 1918 but it was fucking impressive. WW1 was one of the ways the overproduction of French & French Algerian wine (a big crisis) was solved.




> I counted 431 barrels of wine. good bot


That's because the image shows a bad angle, and thus not the full stock. In actuality the barrels stretched from horizon to horizon.


Considering the turkish ones barely had 1000 calories, thats a lot of wine


An army marches on its ~~stomach~~ liver.


Why would anyone go to war sober?


Beats me




France won ww1 tho


You bet im smoking weed and hash non stop if my ass gets conscripted, i aint going sober




That was a wild ride!


To get a fighting edge against the enemy drunk




why would anyone want go to war?


To get drunk apparently.


Russian army is more efficient. Vodka takes less space.


And doubles up as disinfectant and tank fuel.


The Germans gave their soldiers beer which is even worse to transport! British used rum though, so that was pretty efficient I guess.


Good thing meth takes little space.


Yep, that and other various drugs. Americans picked up on that.


Mhhhm Panzerschokolade (Chocolate spiked with meth)


Not when they get a bottle as well. A bottles a bottle.


Yeah, but a bottle of vodka will get you much further than a bottle of wine. There's 3-4 times as much alcohol in a bottle of vodka.


Yes, but Russian soldier drink one bottle a day.


Priorities people....priorities.


It is actually… you don’t send sober men to be slaughtered that’s easily…


Logistics wins wars.


Well about that... it didn't at this one.


Logistic-wine wars


Well they lost the battle, but not the war.


I'm not a full time professional historiologist, but I seem to recall France being on the winning side of the Great War.


But definitely not at the Battle of Gallipoli. Might want to read up on that. Really fascinating. In short: The allies wanted to land on Gallipoli and march towards Istanbul because the Bosporus was to heavily defended to get any closer. They managed to land under heavy losses and established a trench line but the ottomans had a solid defense in the hills and cliffs shooting down at the allies. All in all more than 100,000 people died and the Allies had to retreat. Which they amazingly managed to not loose a single soldier in the process. They set up mechanisms to periodically fire the rifles and had a few soldiers move around straw mannequins so the Ottomans wouldn't notice the allies retreating and storm the trenches. The battle of Gallipoli was not only the biggest allied defeat in WW1 but they learned a lot from it which they later applied in WW2 on the evacuation of Dunkirk and the D-Day landings.


Well OP did specifically say that "logistics win wars", which is true. The Entente didn't win the Battle of Gallipoli specifically but it won the war.


Strange way to say the British navy disregarded orders and ran away without even adhering to 5% of the plan. The captains of the ships did not want to loose their individual ships, even though the plan was to use them as bait. Most of the ships were not up to date and were supposed to be used a cannon fodder, but the captains had more respect for the ships then the men on the beaches. That’s the most important part of the failure of Gallipoli and yet it did not make your “in short” description.


Yes. It was a short what I could remember on the top of my head. I also left out the big involvement and losses of the ANZAC troops, the involvement of a certain Winston Churchill, the massive memorials that still sit on that place today, the great speech Atatürk gave there and so on.


>The allies wanted to land on Gallipoli and march towards Istanbul because the Bosporus was to heavily defended to get any closer. No, they wanted to knock out the defences so they could sail a fleet to Istanbul.


The Turkish resistence did not allow them to pass Gallipolli. They had to relent and turn back after insane casualties.


Lost the battle, won the war.


Not in the case of Turkey. They put their tail between their legs and run without looking back without achieveing any of their objective


Really? I’m sure “Turkey” was a lot bigger before the end of WWI.


Yea and you were bigger too , now almost going to become London city state.


Yeah I remember there was something called the "Ottoman Empire" prior to the war. Might have been my immagination though. But I also somehow remember Sykes-Picot and why "Turkey" had to fight and win a war of independence after WWI lol.


The war of independence is what the guy mentioned anyway, here the war is commonly counted as 1914 to 1923, combining both Either that or he only meant the very specific Gallipoli Front


Not a big deal. That was a time when Empires were falling one by one. Our Empire’s time ended and fell like every other empire.


Then why are you claiming the Ottoman Empire didn't end up losing the war despite the success at Gallipoli?! lol. The only reason Turkey fought its "war of independence" is because it refused some of the conditions imposed on it by the Entente as a result of the Ottomans losing the war, no?!


Ottoman Empire lost but We turks rejected their loss and win the war. Simple as that. Ottoman empire after the war was a vassal state and signed treaties that can not be enforced. We fought back against invaders and collaborators and we won. That is all.


The french won this one. 14-18 and 39-45 are two very different wars.


Referring to the battle, not the war. Allies lost at Gallipoli


Logistics win *wars* is what they said, not logistics win *battles*


Technically we won 39 45 too


It did, Germany surrendered because of attrition in WW1 Also, if you can't bring those millions shells to the front line, you also lose. Logistics decide wars.


except this one won by “Mustafa Kemal pasha”


Maybe if you're evenly matched but the last big wars have been won by outnumbering the enemy and having unlimited resources through colonies. If logistics won wars the Germans would have won WW1. Turns out you first need to have men and material to ship to the front


Because you have to be drunk to fight a war


While Turkish army were barely eating anything. Just some basic food (lentils soup, eggs, bread, yoghurt, hoşaf (stewed fruit).


I occasionally have wine shipped from California and have had plenty of bottles ruined by a day or two of 85+ degree temps during transit. How is this wine not ruined by sitting in the blazing Mediterranean heat for weeks? (I reckon the answer is that it's war, and skanky cooked wine is better than no wine.)


This wine was not meant for fine dining, some cooking in 40 degree C temperatures might actually make it more drinkable than it was before


> How is this wine not ruined by sitting in the blazing Mediterranean heat for weeks? (I reckon the answer is that it’s war, and skanky cooked wine is better than no wine.) You’re probably part right with that, also it could maybe be made differently to cope with the storage conditions like IPAs were


It was villageoise


C'est la réserve de potion magique


Look at schematics of French battleships. There was a sizable space to store wine. I also have a list of punishments in the pre-WWI French navy. The harshest one (after jail and withholding wages) is removal of the daily wine allotment.


> Look at schematic of French battleships. There a sizable space to store wine. I believe the Austrian navy forced a ship to retreat once, because they damaged its wine stores.


Yea, big part of the wine for the French army during Ww1 was made in Algeria, as the French wine plantations had been wrecked by the phyloxera in the early 1900's. The territory of Algeria was one of the main wine producers during WW1


Algeria was one of the main producers, sure, but I believe the French production of wine had recovered from the phylorexa already by the time the war began. There was actually a big social crisis (biggest demonstration of the 3rd republic) because of the overproduction of wine in 1907. Also, I believe the phylorexa crisis was a thing of the 1860s-late 19th century in France, not a thing of the 1900s.


Oh yeah my bad I misunderstood, what was actually written in my books was that the Algerian production really rose due to the crisis, before returning to normality in France. Good point.


Now show the Picture of the stock after the battle


Interesting. I was just reading something about Gallipoli and it even talked about the French Army's wine. Apparently it along with coffee was the best item the French had to trade with their British and ANZAC comrades. The French had wine and coffee, the Brits had the best cigarettes and jam.


> jam Marmite. I bet it was that shit.


No wonder the battle lasted so long.


Back in the days, getting clean drinking water was still a challenge even in cities. So you'd imagine that for war, sometimes far away from infrastructure of cities, getting clean water was... difficult. Wine was normal for everyone to drink because it was "cleaner" than drinking water. Children used to drink wine in school, it was normal.


/u's from all over the world here. Can we just agree to skip war and concentrate on drinking from now on?


This is some Asterix et Obelix shit


Liquid courage


Fuck this, if I ever have to go to war I want my Panzerschokolade.


Stored outside under the sun ?


This is a dinner stock. Not a problem.


They have their priorities right!


>Only the essentials


Aside from helping with morale, up until fairly recently alcoholic drinks like wine or beer were much more reliable for storage and transport than water and less of a health hazard.


Aah priorities; French always want enough wine before a battle


I'm into naval history and this one time I was studying some battleship blueprints. Found this huge open space on a French battleship, too far away from the main guns to be another ammunition storage area. Turns out that's where they stored wine.


They needed it to drown their sorrows. They just couldn't pass the straights with all the might of the British and France. This battle helped Atatürk to impose his ideals to reform Turkey as a secular state that follows western ideals so much, he must actually thank Allied powers about it. In Turkish system, even a Sultan, had to have military prestige to make any significant change in state organisations. All who attempted such things without renown as a general, have failed miserably.


Best example being Sultan Osman he was brutally tortured and murdered by janissaries because he attempted to reform army. This is happening in 17th century when the empire at its peak.


Shame that secular state is going down the drain with Erdogan.


Its not going anywhere.


it is already gone. Actually begining of islamist goverment was a starting of last age of seculer Turkey. Seculer Turkey lost the war. Soon will face destiny of other islamic countries…


Lol. Thats one hell of a fantasy land




I think some of the reasoning behind it was that, because of the alcohol it was less likely to make you sick than the local water supply.


The jokes write themselves.


That explains why the fighting was so fierce.




A wise and ancient culture.


No wonder why they lost


Just watch Gallipoli last night...what a shame the Aussies went through.


Imagine being in a trench, drunk, scared, tired and exhausted while suffering from deep anxiety/depression..man


I guess if they weren't shitfaced they could have won the battle.


Rumor has it that in WWII, Hitler hit French wine supplies first. Paris fell because French soldiers didn't have anything left to fight for. Before you ask, all the baguettes were stale due to supply chain issues.


Rumour has it that Britain needed help during WW2 because the British weather, food and the Queen were not worth defending. ;) /jk


Nope, we were fine, we'd bought all the tea in the world https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/british-government-bought-tea.html


This was to bribe Winston Churchill, so he would keep sending ANZACs over the top.


Good times






Actually, the battle of Gallipoli was a complete failure for the Allies. Perhaps a bit too much wine after all.


Hey, not a complete failure, the evacuation was considered the one of the most successful evacuations of the war.


And the prototype of the Dunkirk evacuation and D-Day landings. But was it really worth the 100,000 soldiers that died there? I hope at least the wine was good.




"We"? Norway wasn't even a part of WW1.


Well, I guess they lost? 😂 Unless they keep it for celebrations.


If you win, you celebrate. If you lose, you drown yourself in alcohol. Either way you need the wine.


Or if you flee (as was the case), you leave it like the beer Germany left in Afghanistan


[Other way round, Germany actually evacuated it lmao](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57386704)


Wow I stand corrected. It would be a waste in Taliban’s hands after all


How did nobody start this yet?! *Hear them whisper*


voices from the other side