3 ms·
Not bad for a 1943 field guide. 1. It’s a quick read. 2. It has a clear list of dos and donts. 3. It explains what the soldier’s mission there is in a broad
by csa 5y ago
Not bad for a 1943 field guide.
1. It’s a quick read.
2. It has a clear list of dos and donts.
3. It explains what the soldier’s mission there is in a broad sense (defeat Hitler).
4. It has quite a bit of quick-and-dirty info like language basics and a map (I’m guessing more than a few folks stationed there would not be able to find Iraq on a world map before they went — that’s true today for sure).
Not a bad effort.
- quartesixte 5y agoSomething about the language of manuals from this time is truly a masterclass in effective teaching. This and instructional videos from this time feels like a lost art
- lovecg 5y agoIt seems like a manual like that today would have to go through multiple layers of bureaucracy and legal approvals that would suck all life out of the language. I know that the army always had censors, etc. but maybe it is yet another example how things were “simpler” back then?
- monkeybutton 5y agoIt certainly feels a lot less sanitized or "corporate bland". The tone is very casual, like you're talking to an older buddy. Lots of colloquialisms like "southpaw" and "lick" as in beating someone. Even some puns "Yes, Iraq is hot spot in more ways than one". The one thing I can't tell if that's just how it was written naturally, or if that tone is on purpose like in the propaganda films and posters of the time. Obviously they wanted soldiers to read and follow the instructions, not get bored and toss it aside so I think the style is intentional. Can you imagine if it was written today, what would they use to make it approachable for young soldiers, emojis and memes?
- csa 5y ago> Can you imagine if it was written today, what would they use to make it approachable for young soldiers, emojis and memes? Take a look for yourself: https://fieldsupport.dliflc.edu/ https://fieldsupport.dliflc.edu/ Spoiler alert… no emojis or memes.
- inglor_cz 5y ago"It seems like a manual like that today would have to go through multiple layers of bureaucracy and legal approvals that would suck all life out of the language." That is a byproduct of having networked computers. It is easy and cheap to distribute first draft of a .DOC text to 10 000 officers for comments. It wasn't as easy with a real paper copy.
- lostlogin 5y agoIt also lacks an impenetrable safety section on the multiple hazard environment and a ridiculous preface explaining how amazing the authors are.