Midway, Alternate History, and the matter of interpretation.

[Gary Oswald]

Discuss this article by @M_Kresal here

 

[Coiler]

Great article. One of the things that infuriated me about 198X Fuldapocalyptic World War III discussions that fits with the theme is that too many people just defaulted to western sources from the early-mid 1980s when talking about the Soviet Army. It's something I find kind of frustrating when translated primary sources and works that built on those have long been available. They're obviously not perfect themselves (the ideal of advancing 60 kilometers a day against active resistance is rather questionable), but they're there and should be acknowledged when too often they're not.

 

[William Stroock]

I always thought a story about a Japanese amphibious assault on Midway would be a great read. I also think the Marines would have slaughtered them. They had tanks.

 

[Charles EP M.]

The part about the Nautilus and bombers being mistaken/fibbing is amazing. We're well used to the old standby of saying Sea Lion couldn't have happened, but god imagine working out a big alternate history you mean to be plausible and then learning "so it turns out some of the sources were lying/didn't realise they'd fired on the wrong thing and this entire AH is now wrong"

 

[Death's Companion]

The part about the Nautilus and bombers being mistaken/fibbing is amazing. We're well used to the old standby of saying Sea Lion couldn't have happened, but god imagine working out a big alternate history you mean to be plausible and then learning "so it turns out some of the sources were lying/didn't realise they'd fired on the wrong thing and this entire AH is now wrong"

Honestly though its something that has always been at the back of my mind about everything because well there is nothing on earth more fallible than human memory and combat does funny stuff to the brain and a lot of statistics have a whole lot going on with them and then world wars tend to be disruptive.


Basically all historical record is just a narrative rather than iron clad absolute fact. Sometimes you just have to roll with it.

 

[Redolegna]

I always thought a story about a Japanese amphibious assault on Midway would be a great read. I also think the Marines would have slaughtered them. They had tanks.

Parshall and Tully had an appendix about it. They were not sanguine about the Japanese's chances.

 

[Coiler]

This article does seem to touch on the same points I made in my Formations in the Fog of War post. (Not accusing it of anything, just pointing out the similarities).

 

[M_Kresal]

This article does seem to touch on the same points I made in my Formations in the Fog of War post. (Not accusing it of anything, just pointing out the similarities).

You know, I read that back in February but didn't make any connection to this as I was writing it. Indeed, what I initially pitched @Gary Oswald was more focused on AH and the turning points in the battle, with my intention being that what became the finished article would be the (shorter) closing section. Instead, writing that section first (as you do), it took on a life of its own as a full-sized article.

Apologies if I stepped on any toes, however accidentally that might have been.

 

[Gary Oswald]

There was also an old @David Flin article about historical fiction when the official record is wrong.

It's such a crucial element of historical writing that I for one am happy to see multiple takes on it with different examples and conclusions.

I certainly plan to talk about coping with multiple contradictory accounts of the same events in future articles, because ultimately there are certain events where we will never know for sure what actually happened.

 

[Coiler]

Apologies if I stepped on any toes, however accidentally that might have been.

No need, there's plenty of room for different perspectives on similar themes.