Válečné konflikty vždy zdůrazní význam potravinářství a potravinářského výzkumu, což plně platilo i ve 2. světové válce. V následující, tzv. studené válce se otázka zabezpečení dostatečných a trvanlivých zásob potravin pro vojsko i civilní obyvatelstvo stala opět mimořádně důležitým tématem, na nějž se soustředil zájem badatelů. Významnou roli v Československu sehrál jeden ze zakladatelů moderního konzervárenství u nás, brněnský rodák a moravský patriot Vladimír Kyzlink (29. února 1915-3. ledna 2008). and Martin Franc.
To write about "Vladimír Skalička and Linguistic Anthropology" might seem somewhat surprising if we take into consideration the generaly prevailing immanentist attitudes of the great Czech linguist (1909-1991; see also „Skaličkiana“, in Skalička 2004: 16). These attitudes may have been most strikingly documented, with even international repercusions, in the area of language typology. And yet: let us stress that at least since the time of the study Problém jazykové různosti (The Problems of Language Variety, 1947/48), there have appeared themes in Skalička‘s work that could be qualified as expressions of an interest in what is today called „linguistic anthropology“; this scope can be divided into three groups: (1) The „Eurasian“ group (or „Sprachbund“), which can be found in in Skalička‘s early bibliography but which returns later - albeit on a purely general level - in his considerations of language affinities. (2) The group of „primitive language", once a popular object of both linguistics and ethnology (the best example is the Australian aranta). Let us add that this group is not free of certain paradoxes: on one hand, Skalička admits an organic, distinctive role of gestures, but on the other hand he rejects the existence of a primitive language. (3) The group of „language and society", in which it is interesting not only to observe Skalička‘s explicit „ethnolinguistic" scepticism or circumspection, but also - precisely in this context - echoes of both Marrism and Marxism, which exteriorize the somewhat simplistic evolutionist and social perspective that can be hardly made compatible with the perspective of modem empirie ethnology. The explicitness of these echoes in Skalička‘s attitudes toward the above mention relation, gradually fades away.