Winston S Churchill is popularly known as that pithy British warlord and statesman whose succinct statements are staples of books of quotations. Outside of Shakespeare, he is probably the most quoted person in the English language. Directness is as much a part of his persona as his cigar. And all of this is true and valid acknowledgment for a man with a first class wit and uncommon insight; he made the complex sound simple without detracting from the overall meaning. However, this is far from a complete picture of his rhetorical accomplishments and abilities; his strength as a writer and speaker is richer than this. Churchill is also at his best when he is at work developing a line of reasoning or illuminating a situation or personality. This ability is evident throughout his The Second World War, a six volume, first-hand account.

Churchill was deeply conscious of his status as a public person. He appreciated the sometimes misdirected harshness and fallibility of public opinion and the damage that irresponsible statements could do to a person’s reputation and, ultimately, their place in history. His biography of the Duke of Marlborough contains many sections disputing the misleading, inaccurate, negative statements of previous historians. Churchill himself had been maligned by press and public for the failed Gallipoli campaign during WWI; even today there are people who still think the failure was all his fault. He spends some time in The Second World War refuting statements made in other first-hand accounts about himself: he refutes the idea that he was opposed to the D-Day invasion and effectively discredits Franklin Roosevelt’s son, Elliot’s, version of events at the Tehran conference in 1943. With a sentient appreciation of the hazards of doing the business of the people, he was a fair and broadminded critic, sheathing his plunging, aphoristic style for more developed images.

One of Churchill’s most memorable images is of Josef Stalin at Potsdam in 1945 told towards the end of the last volume, TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY. Churchill and the British had been through a lot with the Soviets. As France fell and the Nazi fury converged on Britain, the Soviets adhered to their non-aggression pact with Germany, going so far as to ship supplies to them; in fact trainloads of Soviet raw materials and manufactured goods were en route to the Reich even as the German onslaught commenced in the east. After that, there was the tenterhooked alliance and the long Arctic voyages made by British merchantmen convoying supplies to Archangel, oftentimes punctuated by rough handling and internment by the Soviets. To Churchill’s uneasiness, in calling for an offensive in the west to draw troops away from the east, Stalin didn’t hesitate to remind him that the Soviet armies were doing the bulk of the fighting; more Russians were being killed than any other nationality. Still, in spite of all of the wrangling and accusations, the people and leaders of Britain and the Soviet Union had been bedfellows on the Nazi rack and Churchill expresses a profound respect for the Russian soldiery and people, as well as an appreciation of the abilities of Stalin himself.

With the Allied forces victorious in Europe, Stalin, Churchill, and Truman met in Potsdam, Germany, a suburb of Berlin, to begin deciding the fate of prostrate Germany. The agenda for this conference included some of the most pressing and resonant issues of the war and peace: the borders of Poland were to be discussed; as many as two million Germans were unaccounted for behind Russian lines; the relocation of three or four million Poles and as many as eight million Germans was being considered; the Soviets were advocating depriving Germany of a quarter of its arable land by a puppet Polish regime; winter was a few months away and Germany’s ability to feed and provide heat for its population was at stake; starvation was likely in the British occupation zone which contained most of the population, but not nearly enough coal or farming land to support it; the fate of millions was in the balance. Europe had been a shambles many times before but never on such a scope. Napoleon’s muskets, cannons, and looting soldiers were puerile nuisances alongside Nazi conquest and occupation. This was the agenda for Potsdam.

The conference consisted of plenary sessions during the day with a more informal itinerary in the evening. It was protocol that each leader would host a banquet; the night of July 23rd was Churchill’s turn to extend hospitality. The company changed chairs and, as planned, the occasion took on an air of informality. Churchill, Truman, and Stalin took turns talking to each other individually. Here was the moment for the leaders to meet as men and express sentiments of good will and fair-mindedness necessary to ensure peace in the future.

Churchill’s vignette begins with Stalin moving around the hall procuring signatures on the menu. Who would have figured Stalin for a scrapbooker? As Stalin made his way to him, Churchill complied with his request for a signature and the two became engaged in conversation.

For whatever reason, at these conferences Stalin and the other Soviet attendees drank toasts from “tiny glasses.” But here in this room, in the first flush of victory after a long, unpredictable struggle together, Churchill had Stalin all to himself and he thought he would, “take him on a step.”

So I filled a small-sized claret glass with brandy for him and
another for myself. I looked at him significantly. We both
drained our glasses at a stroke and gazed approvingly at one
another. After a pause Stalin said, ‘If you find it impossible
to give us a fortified position in the Marmora, could we not
have a base at Dedeagatch?’ I contented myself with saying,
“I will always support Russia in her claim to the freedom of
the seas all the year round (579).

It has often been said and confirmed that drink lowers the inhibitions and loosens the tongue. People drop their guard, reserve subsides for a while, and they reveal directly or indirectly that which is foremost in their mind; here is an instance.

This exchange reveals Stalin’s veiled assumptions about how the issue of sovereignty in the occupied and conquered territories should work. The Sea of Marmora and Dedegatch are outside of the British empire; Churchill did not have the authority to “give” Russia either of these territories. Stalin is assuming that it is acceptable for the three victorious powers to simply divvy up the occupied and conquered lands. This slip is in marked contrast with his outspokenness about self-determination in Poland; with the Lublin Poles essentially “installed” and supported by Soviet arms, he was eager for the London Poles to be silenced, independent election observers not enter Poland, and the gold in the bank account of the pre-war Polish government be sent home forthwith. But here he is trying to negotiate with Churchill like the occupied lands were so much booty to be dealt with at the will of the remaining great powers.

Disarmed by the informality of the banquet, his guard dispatched by a stiff jolt of liquor, Stalin revealed his true mind- the “firstling” of his heart was to acquire military bases while the world was still exhausted, confused, and defenseless. Famine and starvation awaited millions but Stalin, with the leader of one of the world powers and an ally with whom he had endured so much, chose to discuss expanding the Soviet sphere of influence instead. Either he didn’t understand or he didn’t care- Churchill doesn’t presume to know.

The format of the banquet was informal, not designed for talking business; that was for the plenary sessions during the day at which the Soviets had been eager to postpone discussion and defer dire issues to a future conference. Here, tellingly out of place, Stalin is eager to discuss a specific affair of state. Disregarding an opportunity to nurture a personal friendship vital to the peace of mankind on earth, he instead attempts to procure territory and strategic advantage. Churchill’s “contented” is the emotional understatement of centuries.

Here is Churchill in full stride; this fractal of his experience at Potsdam elucidates his years of war with this difficult, problematic ally. However, instead of openly stating with a pregnant jibe or aphorism, Churchill brings the reader to the scene and exposes Stalin with the cynical tyrant’s own words; the details drive the point home. The reader sees the source of his perception, fair and perspicuous, and, in doing so, he avoids coming off as carping and petty; readers see a person for themselves. His frustration takes free rein in subdued tones.

While his more aphoristic statements are memorable sagacities, timeless and applicable, a profound strength of his as a writer is his subtlety; through patient, craftsman-like, storytelling, we can see his ideas taking shape in the moment. He gives us an image, conveying his uncanny knack for appreciating and capturing the temperament of a person and situation. His historical writing is both informative and illuminating.

Riots over the price of food are a bigger share of the news these days; Bangladesh, Egypt, and Haiti seem to have erupted spontaneously. The price of milk here in the United States has risen to around $4.00 a gallon, not to mention the price of arugula at Whole Foods. Judging by the major media outlets, food prices have skyrocketed in a short amount of time. However, food prices have been increasing since 2001 with a sharp spike in 2006 (Trostle 2). This trend will likely continue unless we as a nation and individuals do what we can to mitigate the causes now.

The rising cost of food is attributable to no single factor. The devaluation of the dollar has made our food products cheaper for foreign consumers. Foreign consumers also have more money now than they have had in the past; the overall wealth of the world has increased. As a result, fewer people are growing their own food and more people are buying more high-end, energy intensive items like meat and dairy (Trostle 7). The price is going up with demand.

And foreign consumers are buying agricultural products from a pool of supply that is not growing at its usual rate. While for some crops overall yield is increasing, it is not increasing as much as it has in the past (Trostle 4). Drought conditions and weather disasters in many parts of the world have further lessened the supply of food in relation to demand.

More recently, the price of oil has gone up dramatically. Oil is a major component of every part of the food economy: production, processing, transportation. In an effort to mitigate rising oil prices, more corn and other grains are being used to produce biofuels, thereby raising demand. Prices for food producers that rely on the same crops for raw materials have gone up dramatically. Causes and effects are reacting on one another.

Most of the causes of the rise in food prices are beyond our control or interest to change. Our country has to move off oil energy; biofuels are the answer of the moment at least because they fit our existing agricultural and transportation infrastructure. We can’t stop the growth of wealth in other countries, nor would we want to. Farmers will plant crops on as much land as is profitable and manageable. And, the weather is, well, the weather.

Food transportation is a different story. It is not a big part of the food price equation now, but will likely become more significant as the situation unfolds. And, while most of what determines the cost of food is beyond our control as citizens and a nation, the distance and means by which food travels is not. We can mitigate the things beyond our control by dealing in a common sense, proactive manner with the things that are.

Transportation: The Sleeper

Historically, food transportation has been inexpensive when compared to the other costs associated with a retail food product: 6-12 percent of the total cost (Pirog 9). The result, as you might have guessed, is that food travels more often and farther than ever. In 1981, produce traveled an average of 1,245 miles to reach Chicago; by 1998, the distance increased 22% to 1,518 miles (Pirog 13). From California, 485,000 truckloads of produce are exported every year to places ranging from 100-3,100 miles away (Pirog 3). A cursory perusal of the labels at your local grocery store will reveal basic, every day food products from all over the world. The trend is for food to travel longer and longer distances to reach your table. In part, cheap fuel has made these distances cost-effective.

The trend is also for food to travel these longer distances by way of increasingly inefficient means. Rather than the relative logistical inconvenience of rail freight at 423 miles per gallon of diesel, semi-trailers at less than 10 mpg dominate the food transportation system. In the late 1970’s, fresh produce traveled 60% by truck and 40% by rail. By 1996, 93% of fresh produce went by truck (Pirog 11-12). Wasteful transportation methods are the norm. The cheapness of food transportation has created a way of doing business that is becoming less and less cost-effective as the price of oil goes up and up.

Public policy has also contributed to the low price of food transportation. An international agreement from the 1940s exempts international freight transporters, air and ship, from paying fuel taxes. Originally intended to give a boost to the then newly created airline industry, the agreement has had the unintended effect of giving a competitive edge to global food marketers thereby lengthening food supply lines (Rosenthal 1-2).

This exemption, however, may soon go away like cheap oil already has; it is losing its inviolability. The European Union is moving towards a plan where importers will have to assume the financial burden of greenhouse emissions. Some elected officials in the United States are becoming less enamored of the exemption as well (Rosenthal 1-5). Add this policy change to the inevitable rise in fuel prices and the question is not whether the cost of transporting food will go up, but by how much.

Use Less Fuel

Higher food prices have been precipitated and sustained by many factors. Like the problem, the solution is multi-faceted as well. Some factors are beyond our sphere of influence as citizens or a nation. Food transportation, however, is not. We can pursue policies and make decisions that will lessen the transportation costs of our food, thereby offsetting food price factors that are beyond our control.

To begin with, we need to encourage use of our rail system. Rail is a much more cost-effective way to carry freight. A rail revival would have a compound effect; the more food that goes by train means less will go by more expensive semi-trailers. Other businesses would use the system as well. This would mean an overall relative decrease in diesel fuel demand.

The drawback of rail freight is the food demographic it fosters. Rail lines are expensive; it is not really practical to lay track into every hamlet or near every patch of agricultural land. The rails will likely run to the most extensive agricultural areas. Like the cow towns of Abilene, agribusinesses will coalesce around areas accessible by rail and vice-versa.

Large concentrations of livestock or crops in one area are more vulnerable to widespread disease and pest infestation; for example, with all your chickens at one place, an unchecked outbreak of avian flu would have a devastating effect on the entire supply. A concentrated food demographic could lead to higher prices and scarcity.

With less access to rail, less extensive agricultural areas would be at a competitive disadvantage; these food economies will have difficulty prospering in the midst of large agribusinesses and non-agricultural pressures like residential development. Less food production diversity means less competition as well; higher prices are the likely results. Rail freight is just one part of the solution.

Shorten the Distance

Growing and packaging food closer to where it will be consumed would be an effective complement to rail. Where rail freight lowers the cost per mile, regional and local food economies reduce the absolute distance food travels; the amount of fuel needed in the transportation system is thereby reduced.

A combination of local and regional food sources makes the most sense. A study of Iowa’s food economy concluded that the current semi-trailer-based, global and domestic transportation system uses between 4 and 17 times more fuel than a more regional/local one would. Furthermore, growing just 10% more of the produce consumed in Iowa in an Iowa-based regional/local system would result in a fuel savings of about 280 to 346 thousand gallons of fuel per year (Pirog 2). This study focuses exclusively on Iowa, but gives an idea of the profound effects a few small local changes can have on an entire food system. Growing food closer to where it will be consumed decreases the amount of fuel used.

Like the rail system, regional and local food economies were once simply the way business was done, not an innovation. In southern York County, Pennsylvania, up until about 1970, it seemed there was a canning house in almost every town. Iowa’s canning capacity has gone from processing sweet corn in 58 canneries in 36 counties in 1924 to just 2 statewide (Pirog 6). Cheap fuel and international agreements have undermined regional/local agricultural economies almost to the point of non-existence. With fuel and transportation prices on the rise, these smaller, disparate food production and processing facilities will be needed. Here is a factor affecting the cost of food on which we can use hammer and nails.

Food prices have increased for a variety of reasons most of which are beyond our control. Food transportation, however, is something we can change to mitigate prices in the near and distant future. A combination of rail freight infrastructure and more regional/local food economy models will help shield our food prices from the whims of global markets and nature.

How do you nurture rail transportation and local and regional food economies? Write your congressional representative and inform them of your support for rail freight. Check labels and limit your purchases as much as possible to items grown close to your home. Buy food from a local roadside stand or farmers’ market. Grow your own food and share it with your neighbors. The food you buy close to home and grow yourself will more than likely taste better and be more nutritious than similar items you buy at a grocery store; you’ll not really be making a sacrifice. Many small, conscientious acts by many people over time will add up to a healthier food system for everyone.

John Rehmeyer
May 25, 2008

Works Cited

Pirog, R., Van Pelt, T., Enshayan, K., Cook, E. (2001). Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa   perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from Iowa State University, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture Website: http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/ppp/index.htm

Rosenthal, E. “Environmental Cost of Shipping Groceries Around the World.” The New York Times: nytimes.com, April 26, 2008.

Trostle, R. (2008). Global Agricultural Supply and Demand: Factors Contributing to the Recent Increase in Food Commodity Prices. United States Department of Agriculture Report. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/WRS0801/

The crowd in Rome that day must have been awestruck as Pompey walked through the streets leading his horses.  The custom during the Republic was for knights to relinquish their horses and give a spoken account of their activities while in service to censors in order to be relieved of their duties.  But Pompey was no average knight; victorious, handsome, beloved, he was a general who owed his command solely to himself.   Whether he would resign or try to seize power must have weighed heavily on their minds (Plutarch 86).  Romans must have sighed in relief as he handed the reins to the censors; their pride must have swelled as he told his tale.

Robert Graves’ Good Bye To All That is the culmination of this enduring proclivity to tell and hear stories of combat.  But, where Pompey’s story glorified his native land in the minds of his listeners, Graves’ struck a cynical chord; and, where Pompey told his story as part of a convention in order to continue serving his people as consul, Graves had a much different purpose.

To Robert Graves, his autobiography, Good-Bye To All That, was worth money.  Revolted by what he had seen during his service as an officer in the trenches during WWI and the culture he saw as precipitating the grotesque farce in France and the Low Countries, he moved to Majorca, an island in the Mediterranean.  Financially in need, he decided to capitalize on his experiences and the post-war fervor over first-hand accounts of the war (Fussel viii).  He had a good story, and, with some embellishment and pandering to a sympathetic audience, he hoped to profit.