It's very difficult to make out which side you are talking about in some passages.
Please indicate which passages you are referring to.
Also, no submission statement.
Quoting the rules on the sidebar:
"If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images)."
What are your sources on this? You write authoritatively and with seeming knowledge of Japanese discussions, commander psychologies and thought processes. Is this an original work of yours, basically synthesized from all the relevant facts that bounce around your head, or ?
I don't mean to sound doubtful or critical. Just curious. I love the overall approach and depth; it's been a great series. It just feels like it lacks citations. But it's already way beyond an "effortpost", so bravo!
I said in the very first post, but maybe I wasn't explicit enough. This series is a essentially an abridged version of the book Shattered Sword by historians Johnathan Parshall and Anthony Tully. I'm writing a narrative that focuses more on analyzing the battle without all the small details that they include. They devote, for example, several pages to talking about the performance parameters of Japanese carrier planes that I don't think are relevant if you're just trying to understand Midway broadly.
I’m enjoying the series. Just wish it could come out a little faster :)
Did you ever read /u/mcjunker’s battle reports from the old country? I’m struggling to find them, but at least one was reposted here. (If anyone has other links, I’d really appreciate it!)
Why do you call the japanese scouting efforts 'fucking stupid'(area of sweden etc) when you later note that they perfectly localized the enemy that day.
They got lucky, that's why. They cut numerous corners that no good commander would ever do. In no way could they have banked on learning with reasonable assurance if the Americans were there or not.
I really enjoyed this article and happily followed the substack
I have a vague memory of reading an article online a long time ago that discussed the logistical differences between Japan and the US in terms of how quickly the US was building destroyers/escort carriers/etc by 1944 even. If anyone remembers that can find me the link, I will be eternally* grateful
*grateful for a few hours plus every few years when I think about the article again
Yeah, it blew me away when I first read it. So many of the WWII histories I've read painted the struggle as a near thing but, when the economics are laid bare, it's clear that, if the war dragged on, the Axis were doomed.
Hey, thanks for reading! Comments like yours motivate me to continue!
While I'm not sure what article you read, the authors do maintain an website which gives all manner of interesting details and comparisons between the Japanese and Americans during this time period. You can check out Grim Economic Realities to see them lay out the case for how stark the differences were.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's very difficult to make out which side you are talking about in some passages.
Also, no submission statement.
Please indicate which passages you are referring to.
Quoting the rules on the sidebar:
"If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images)."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What are your sources on this? You write authoritatively and with seeming knowledge of Japanese discussions, commander psychologies and thought processes. Is this an original work of yours, basically synthesized from all the relevant facts that bounce around your head, or ?
I don't mean to sound doubtful or critical. Just curious. I love the overall approach and depth; it's been a great series. It just feels like it lacks citations. But it's already way beyond an "effortpost", so bravo!
I said in the very first post, but maybe I wasn't explicit enough. This series is a essentially an abridged version of the book Shattered Sword by historians Johnathan Parshall and Anthony Tully. I'm writing a narrative that focuses more on analyzing the battle without all the small details that they include. They devote, for example, several pages to talking about the performance parameters of Japanese carrier planes that I don't think are relevant if you're just trying to understand Midway broadly.
Ah, I'm sure I skimmed over the honorifics to try to determine my interest level and just plunged in from there. My bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A good read as always. Keep them coming!
More options
Context Copy link
I’m enjoying the series. Just wish it could come out a little faster :)
Did you ever read /u/mcjunker’s battle reports from the old country? I’m struggling to find them, but at least one was reposted here. (If anyone has other links, I’d really appreciate it!)
Me too, I wish the author would write faster :(
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you call the japanese scouting efforts 'fucking stupid'(area of sweden etc) when you later note that they perfectly localized the enemy that day.
They got lucky, that's why. They cut numerous corners that no good commander would ever do. In no way could they have banked on learning with reasonable assurance if the Americans were there or not.
More options
Context Copy link
Even a stopped clock-shaped search pattern can be right once a day.
And “perfectly” is a bit of a stretch!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
*grateful for a few hours plus every few years when I think about the article again
Is this the one you're thinking of: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm?
That's a great article, haven't seen it in a long time. The part I always remember is:
It's absolutely insane how much of an industrial powerhouse the US was in the 1940s.
Yeah, it blew me away when I first read it. So many of the WWII histories I've read painted the struggle as a near thing but, when the economics are laid bare, it's clear that, if the war dragged on, the Axis were doomed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hey, thanks for reading! Comments like yours motivate me to continue!
While I'm not sure what article you read, the authors do maintain an website which gives all manner of interesting details and comparisons between the Japanese and Americans during this time period. You can check out Grim Economic Realities to see them lay out the case for how stark the differences were.
Both you and @Emptybee nailed it. Man, the internet is amazing sometimes
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link