What does THAT mean?
WWII COMBATIVES. What the hell does that really encompass?
Would anyone be surprised to learn that I think most people have it ALL WRONG?
It HAS very VERY LITTLE to do with “technique”!
New vs. OLD? Well, NO. I have several rare manuals that talk about “martial arts” from Indonesia, SIAM (read THAILAND), Burma and the Philippines, as well as China, and Japan. ALL would be considered OLD stuff from the WWII era and PRIOR!
East vs. West? NOPE. Many, MANY manuals combined Boxing, Wrestling, Savate, La Lutte, Jiujitsu/Judo, Chinese Boxing, etc.
For ALL you “modernists”….There AIN’T NOTHING NEW under the sun!
The ORIGINAL point of contention that was the MAIN STAY of WWII ERA “Unarmed Combat” was SIMPLY THIS:
Self-“DEFENSE” vs. Self-“OFFENSE”! That’s IT. That is ALL there is to it!
Fairbairn and Sykes return to England and SHOCK the powers that be because they advocate VIOLENT OFFENSIVE ATTACK.
Applegate fires this same volley in his original “Infantry Journal” articles….NOT Self-DEFENSE, but aggressive Self-OFFENSE!
So-called “Martial Arts”/ Self-Defense/Unarmed Combat usually meant a set by rote series of REACTIVE maneuvers against the OFFENSIVE attack of the enemy.
He does this………….and you do that.
He grabs you like this………………….and you try this.
And ON and ON……………………………..
Compare the 1942 Unarmed DEFENSE for the American Soldier to the 1946 “Physical Training” manual. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE and THAT is what WWII “Combatives” is really all about.
The ’42 manual is LONG and almost entirely DEFENSIVE in nature and content. The ’46 manual is SHORT, to the POINT, and almost entirely COMPOSED OF NON-SPECIFIC ATTACKS!
BUT even this is NOTHING NEW!
I have DOZENS of manuals from the FIRST WORLD WAR that show the SAME progression. From REACTIVE to BRUTAL OFFENSIVE ATTACK! From specific by-rote to NON-SPECIFIC generally applicable methods of ATTACK!
Ralph and I have manuals dating back CENTURIES that show the same type of METHOD!
Today everyone wants to “combine” Muay-Thai, western boxing, BJJ, Submission Grappling et al, and Believe THAT THEY HAVE FOUND THE HOLY GRAIL OF COMBATIVES! BULLSHIT! Men have been doing this since the DAWN OF TIME!
There are literally DOZENS of manuals and books JUST from the turn of the century that DO JUST THAT!
An edge of hand blow shown in a CENTURIES old WESTERN manuscript is NO different than that shown in 1900 or 1942 or 1950 or 2003.
So when I hear guys spouting about how they have “modernized” this and that…………..well, I get a good laugh, because ALL it shows me is that they AIN’T DONE their homework.
Even “tactics” have remained the same…………………I have several excellent old turn of century manuals that speak perfectly of distance, posture (blading), non-telegraphing hand positions etc. ALL the “components” of HOW not to be caught with your “guard down”.
Today we find article after article extolling the virtues of the “KIMURA” arm lock (Judo’s ude garami). WELL, boyz and gurlz, HEK KENNY advocated that SAME move as a PRIORITY technique in the early 1940’s. Catch wrestlers have done it for decades, as have Judoka. Only DIFFERENCE……the name. Call it the “double wrist lock” or an “ude garami” or whatever IT’S THE SAME THING!
WWII Combatives lays PRIMARY importance on simple, straight forward, effective and practical skills with an OFFENSIVE aggressive attitude of ATTACK and more ATTACK!
BUT…………..ANYONE who has ever considered the pragmatism of surviving a real LIFE battle of survival will have ARRIVED at the SAME conclusions and the SAME techniques………..MEN HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME! A fight is a fight is a FIGHT…………Always has been and ALWAYS WILL BE!
Don’t, as so many DO, miss the forest for the trees!
Posted by ciappar 
Personal Defense Solutions 