New book on the Battle of Midway

[PRB]

There is a new book on the Battle of Midway. Ok, it was published last year, but I just now learned of it. Shattered Sword, The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway, by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully. It purports to “bust” several “myths” surrounding the battle. I have just started reading it. They seem, so far, to have done their homework. This book tells the tale from the IJN perspective. Among the myths to be busted:

The US triumphed against overwhelming odds in this battle.

The Aleutians operation was conceived by Yamamoto to lure the US fleet out of Pearl Harbor.

During the transit to Midway, Yamamoto withheld intelligence from Nagumo, leaving him blind as to the operational situation during the battle.

The late launch of the Tone’s scout plane doomed Nagumo to defeat in the battle.

Had Nagumo not re-armed his planes with land attack weapons after the first strike on Midway, he would have been in position to launch against the American fleet as soon as it was discovered.

The torpedo squadrons destruction was not in vain because they drew down the Zeros and allowed the 10:20 attack of the dive bombers to succeed.

Evidently much of what we thought we knew about the Japanese side of the battle comes from the book Midway, The Battle That Doomed Japan, by Mitsuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya. Seems this book has been largely discredited in Japan now for 25 years. Seems the authors deliberately “changed some facts around” to suite themselves. It all sounds very interesting. I’ve read many books on the Battle of Midway, so to the two authors of this new book I say: “convince me!”

As to the first myth, about the US triumphing against overwhelming odds at Midway, H.P. Willmott "busted" that one in 1983 in his superb book The Barrier and the Javelin. At the point of contact, off Midway, the two forces were actually pretty evenly matched. The Japanese fleet had lots of assets that were not involved in the battle, not the least of which being the ships of the Aleutian operation.

[Togo]

Yes, a very good read, going through it for the second time now.
J. Parshalls website is always worth a look if you're interested in IJN.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/

[crashaz]

Sweet! Will go and grab this.

Thanks guys! Always enjoy naval history reading.:wavey:

[fliger747]

A very intresting book, well written and researched, much in the manner of Lundstrom's books. It is amazing that it took so long for such a major revision of the history of such a major battle to come to light.

[Collin]

I read somewhere many moons ago that nations change their history every 50 years or so.
While the previous Japanese authors may have been discredited, have these new ones shown any proof for their hypothesis?

regards Collin:ernae:

[Talos2005]

I've not yet read "Shattered Sword", but I could imagine some new interpretations.

Actually, so many arguments have kept been held on what had really took place on the Japanese side.
Through those arguments, many previous authors such as Okumiya, Fuchida, or Kusaka were criticised in Japan.
However, "discredited" sounds too much. It depends what sort of view you stand.
For me, it seems to be a new wave of quasi-revisionists coming.

In that sense, U.S. researchers finally tried to focus their eyes to those arguments already held in Japan in the recent twenty years.
They should catch up as quickly as possible. But, such a revisionist view itself would cause another arguments and be requested its proofs.
I hope a new generation of western researchers would participate actively to interprete the original Japanese documents and records to find what had took place. Just following the arguments already held does not deserve the title of researcher.

This is a good start.

Kind Regards,:wiggle:

[hewman100]

I read somewhere many moons ago that nations change their history every 50 years or so.


They're trying to do it here in the UK again at the moment:d

[PRB]

I've not yet read "Shattered Sword", but I could imagine some new interpretations.

Actually, so many arguments have kept been held on what had really took place on the Japanese side.
Through those arguments, many previous authors such as Okumiya, Fuchida, or Kusaka were criticised in Japan.
However, "discredited" sounds too much. It depends what sort of view you stand.
For me, it seems to be a new wave of quasi-revisionists coming.

In that sense, U.S. researchers finally tried to focus their eyes to those arguments already held in Japan in the recent twenty years.
They should catch up as quickly as possible. But, such a revisionist view itself would cause another arguments and be requested its proofs.
I hope a new generation of western researchers would participate actively to interprete the original Japanese documents and records to find what had took place. Just following the arguments already held does not deserve the title of researcher.

This is a good start.

Kind Regards,:wiggle:

Hi Talos,

Here's a paragrapgh from the introduction that goes to the point of Fuchida's book. In fact Parshall and Tully go a bit beyond "discredited":

"Unfortunately, one of these sources, Fuchida’a Midway, is irretrievably flawed. The effects of Fuchida’s misstatements, which have lain undetected until recently, are manifold. In essence, every Western history of the battle has passed along Fuchida’s untruths to at least some extent, because his errors pertain to very important facets of the engagement: Nagumo’s intelligence estimates, his search plans, Japanese flight deck operations, and the nature of the decisive American dive bomber attack. Fuchida’s are not minor errors of omission, - they are fundemental and willful distortions of the truth that must be corrected. Intriguingly, Fuchida’s account has been overturned in Japan for more than twenty years. Yet, in the West, he has remained as authoritative as on the day his book was first published."

But again, I have just begun this large book. So far it's very interesting.

[PRB]

That paragraph does need some context though. The point wasn’t merely to “rip Fuchida”. They’re pointing out that most Western historians have relied mainly on three Japanese sources for the Japanese side of the battle, Fuchida’s book being one of them, and it’s “irretrievably flawed”, as they put it. The other two are interviews with IJN officers conducted after the war by the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), and Nagumo’s after-action log, captured on Saipan in 1944.

They go on to list other Japanese sources that they have drawn from for this book, including something called the Boeicho Boeikenshujo Senshibu (easy for me to say :d ), compiled by the War History Section of the Japanese Defense Agency, the Midway volume having been published in 1971, as well as never-before translated primary and secondary sources on Japanese carrier and air operations.

[Collin]

So...are we reading just a different "interpretation" of known and newly emerged facts?......oh lord....I feel another "Braveheart" moment coming on!:costumes:


regards Collin

[Talos2005]

Hi Paul,

Besides the authors' view on Fuchida's book, I am very surprised and deplore that so few western historians have not tried to check the original documents left at the War History Section of Japan Defence Agency.
The language barrier is no excuse for many of them. The military history lacking the parallel views is just a war propaganda, and might be fine for some sorts of people who still spreading racial hatred comments openly or metaphorically, deserves nothing and we could not extract the lessons hardly learned from the viewpoints of both sides.
Finally, well after sixty years or more, the appropriate approach to the histroy seems to begin even if I could not comment how to reinterprete those "facts" they claimed to rediscover.

Kind Regards,:wiggle:

[bismarck13]

"Fuchida’s are not minor errors of omission, - they are fundemental "

:costumes:

If that is word for word from the book, I don't know how far I would trust the author or the editor for that matter. Making "Fundamental" errors when criticizing others is poor writing indeed . . . .

[hewman100]

I always thought the proper spelling was "wilful", and the dictionary bears me out.

So that's a serious blunder proof-reading wise, two incorrect spellings within one sentence of the Introduction:icon_lol:

[Collin]

Of course, you are lucky he didn't write it in Essex barely English.

"Fcuk Ida's leafings hout aint da only a prob, da's der bee's knees in porkies!":costumes:




regards Collin:d

[PRB]

Wow. Friendly crowd. In my complete ignorance, I’ve apparently fundamentally mis-read the “lay of the land” of this forum. Most of the posts here, such as they are, and as few as they may be, appear to be related to naval history in some way or other, despite the “official” description of the forum, which is “discussion of shipbuilding & implementation for various sims”, which, sadly, I only noticed after posting about the new book I’m reading. That said, I seem to have stumbled upon some desperate comedy club, posing as a street gang, semi-interested, more or less, in topics variously related to naval history. Sorry to bother you all! Please, don’t let me interrupt your game! Carry on! :costumes:

[bismarck13]

I happen to be employed as a History Professor and my master's thesis was about early battleships. I have had one book review published. If the book was quoted accurately, I stand by commentary. I would have been drummed out of grad school if I had made as many errors in one paper as there are in that one quote. Now, maybe the book has been misquoted, then I am sorry, but in a time when there is such a thing as "spell-check" nothing like that should ever be published. There is no excuse.

Also one should always check the credentials:
Jon Parshall graduated in 1985 from Carleton College, with a B.A. in Geology. He received his MBA in Operations Management from the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota in 1994.
Gifted Amateur I guess, I am now very skeptical . . .

Anyway, I cannot find Mr. Tully's educational background anywhere, but he has done a lot of work as a researcher that is creditable, so now I am less skeptical . . .

Edit: I have to be a bit appalled by the notion of Geologists who write history but I still might read it anyway . . .

[fliger747]

Geologists? I 'are' one: I have a masters in geology, but now days make my living as a 747 captain. Geology is an intersting disipline, actually one of the more worldly sciences (pardon the pun) which draws on many different fields of science to ply it's trade, the mark of an applied science. to do my work I had to draw on mathematics, chemestry, physics, geophysics and surprisingly an ability to read (the field of English?).

Also surprisingly, Geologists are involved in writing "History", though not of the kind that one finds in archives.

What I though was most interesting was the anaylisis of Japanese carrier operations and the time lines, the valid critique of the search patterns of the time. Additionally interesting was the anaylisis of an alternative history: if the Assult force had persisted in an invasion attempt, some excellent points here.

The main points stand, the Japanese were not expecting a counterstrike from ambush, they were expecting to lure the American carriers out for battle with good intelligence of their progress and position. The US code breaking was critical, that remains unchanged. What comes to the fore is in a really somewhat more equal battle (that transpired) than is often cited, the cool use of the forces at hand by Nimitz & co.

I had a friend, Harry Balschuseman, who was young Bosun's Mate on the Hornet at this battle, and all of Hornet's others.

A worthy read, to be considered.

Cheers: Tom

[hewman100]

No misread PRB, but I'm with Bismarck if your passage is verbatim, it's appalling. If the mistakes are yours, apologies for drawing attention to them.

I only pop in here occasionally as ships aren't particularly my thing, but you can usually find an interesting post on the go.

Collin and I just tend to go in for a bit of ribbin' of our respective bits of this once Great Isle of ours (UK), and that's what he was up to then. Most people tend to ignore us, don't they Collin?

[Collin]

Collin and I just tend to go in for a bit of ribbin' of our respective bits of this once Great Isle of ours (UK), and that's what he was up to then. Most people tend to ignore us, don't they Collin?

Yep...as most post concerning ship models now go into CFS2 forum (we don't bother with the other sims), we're left to our own devices. So anything with the slightest whiff of the sea is fair game here.:ernae:

Points to ponder on research

Outside of the USA, technical data on old ships, construction and war records are hard to find. Researchers tend to use details garnered from old books written in the 50's and 60's (which were subject to the OSA in the UK and so completely knackered) or from veteran sites now coming on line.

Researchers nowadays tend to be very junior clericals trying to impress their bosses or have their own slant on 'history' and want to prove 'so'an'so' by writing a paper to get their 'degree' from a fifth rate education establishment.
And in the USA its even worse!:costumes:

If the researcher is under 40, forget it. They won't know about the "hidden papers" (USA) or the UK's OSA (Official Secrets Act) which have various time release documents, even on captured enemy doc's, ( I'm just waiting for the release of the 'Lend/Lease' doc's, then the crap will really hit the fan).:isadizzy:

The young researcher won't know about the restrictions placed on authors in the post war era and take what is written as absolute fact.

Now scuse me while I go off and play my totally factual game of Sudden Strike 2:running:

regards Collin:173go1:

[fliger747]

Read the whole book....

I didn't like the passage quoted by Paul either, which I thought was somewhat over and mis stated.

There is a lot of information to anaylize and consider. The major contribution may have been to attempt to establish a timeline of the many overlapping events.

[hewman100]

Unfortunately we have to consider that now 60 years on we are likely never to have the full story of a lot of incidents of this conflict, because the accounts of the time are unlikely to objective, propaganda will have slanted the 'Official' histories released at the time and much of what was there may still be Classified. Then we all have to deal with this 'Revisionist' history of probably all major combatants and the ogre of 'Hollywood' who never let facts stand in the way of a good story.

I'm waiting to see what happens when this much mooted remake of 'The Dambusters' finally reaches fruition. It's bad enough that while watching the original on TV here we have to be subjected to the 'PC brigade' redubbing the name of Gibsons dog now!

Sorry Soapbox moment:redf:

[bismarck13]

In reality, there is nothing wrong with Revisionist history in theory. Any new and hopefully ground-breaking history is intended to "revise" the old model, whatever that may be. The problem over the last 20 years or so is that "Revisionist" history has gotten a really bad name from the publication of "Holocaust Denial" books and other such nonsense that purport to be "history." One of the most famous of the "Holocaust Denial" writers is actually a PhD and used to be a full-professor at a US University. Problem is his PhD was in Chemical Engineering, not history. It is this sort of bogus hostory that makes trained historians balk at work, creditable as it might be, that is done by authors who do not possess the right credentials. This does not mean that the work is not top-quality, it is just very hard to gain credit for it within the top levels of the historical discipline.

I will make an analogy. I have a couple of Ford Mustangs. One I drive everyday and one I race. I have had all sorts of "hotrods" since I first drove, including a '68 GTO, a Nova SS, and I have now owned 13 Mustangs going back to my first car, a 1964 1/2 Convertible. I have always done my own mechanical work, in fact I won't let anyone touch my 1983 GT, I don't care if it is Carroll Shelby himself. I am not, however, qualified to work anywhere as a Mechanic.

Okay, so your car needs repair.
Now you could just have some guy off the street look at it and chances are pretty slim that you are going to fix the car that way.
Then you could let me take a look at it. There is a chance that I would be able to fix it, especially if it was a Mustang and older. But still there is also the chance it would not be fixed properly.
Then you could do what anyone with any sense would do, you would take it to a qualified mechanic and then you have the greatest chance that the vehicle will be properly repaired.

The point I am making, and pertinent to this string of posts, is that I don't have anything against amateur historians or geologists and I can't say that this book about Midway has anything wrong in its research or conclusions, I have not read the book. But just like the car repairs, I would much prefer a professional historian, especially when I have to lay out $30 or more for a book. Generally speaking, there is a hierarchy to what is acceptable as a good source for a historian:

1) Primary Source Documents and participant interviews
2) Participant accounts (in War, usually the higher rank the better)
3) Work by qualified Historians
4) Work by anyone else (there is a wide seperation here, good to bunk)

Anyway, I might try getting a desk copy of this from the publisher. It is one of the few perks of the job . . .
:costumes:

[PRB]

In reality, there is nothing wrong with Revisionist history in theory. Any new and hopefully ground-breaking history is intended to "revise" the old model, whatever that may be. The problem over the last 20 years or so is that "Revisionist" history has gotten a really bad name from the publication of "Holocaust Denial" books and other such nonsense that purport to be "history." One of the most famous of the "Holocaust Denial" writers is actually a PhD and used to be a full-professor at a US University. Problem is his PhD was in Chemical Engineering, not history. It is this sort of bogus hostory that makes trained historians balk at work, creditable as it might be, that is done by authors who do not possess the right credentials. This does not mean that the work is not top-quality, it is just very hard to gain credit for it within the top levels of the historical discipline.

I can’t find anything to argue about there, except maybe the last sentence. I suppose this point of view from professional historians is inevitable, and even understandable. If the work’s quality is top notch, then it should be so acknowledged, especially by the community of professional historians.

A good example is Edward S. Miller. He wrote an excellent book, War Plan Orange, The U.S. Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897 – 1945, in which he makes the case that the American plan for war against Japan, drawn up in the decades before 1941, was not “thrown out the window” after Pearl Harbor, but was in fact successfully executed over the next four years. Now, Mr. Miller is not an historian, but a corporate executive. Maybe that explains the book’s foreword, written by the Director of Naval History, explaining how Miller was gradually accepted by the Naval Historical Center as a fellow professional, due to the quality of his work.

It may also explain the foreword of the book we’re talking about, written by John B. Lundstrom, in which he makes essentially the same case for these two authors. If Lundstrom thinks the work is well done, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, purchase the book, and read it, since it’s on a subject I like to read about anyway.

[fliger747]

I sprung for the Thirty Five, and though I have an extensive library, I usually pick up my treasures at used bookstores.

The basic points remain the same, but some new emphasis and additional anaylisis and research make his points well worth considering.

A knowledge of this important battle would be incomplete without digestion of the points contained in this new book.