Customer Reviews

Midway, Dauntless Victory: Fresh Perspectives on America's Seminal Naval Victory of World War II

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Captain N. J. "Dusty" Kleiss, USN Ret. (San Antonio, TX USA)

As a WWII dive bomber pilot flying an SBD in the USS Enterprise Scouting Six Squadron, I found Peter C. Smith's book to be the most compelling and accurate historical account of this battle to date. Smith brings numerous new facts to light as well as dispels previous misconceptions.
For example, as the book details, Smith sets the record straight on the bombing of the Kaga, Hiryu, and the Mikuma.
In each of those attacks, I was fourth to dive, and had a perfect view of the enemy. Apart from the Mikuma having some slight previous damage, none of those vessels had experienced any hit prior to the Scouting Six bombing.
Along with being a pictorial treasure, Smith's book is a great read for its numerous conversations with Americans and Japanese who were active before, during, and after this tide-turning WWII battle. Kudos to Smith for his correct historical capture and a job well done.

Capt. N. J. "Dusty" Kleiss, USN Ret.

As the editor for an international association that is exclusively focused on the 1942 Battle of Midway, I was rather skeptical when I first learned that this book was in the works. My feeling was that trying to re-tell the entire story of the battle of Midway was pointless at this late date. A host of well-written books and occasionally credible video productions have covered the subject thoroughly and, for the most part, accurately enough.

Nonetheless, Peter Smith has managed to pull off the unexpected in producing an account of the battle that pretty much surpasses the scope of anything previously seen. The depth of his research and the total effort he put into the project are quite amazing. That said, one needs to be mindful of the book's subtitle, "Fresh Perspectives on America's Seminal Naval Victory of World War II." While Smith is indeed telling the full story of Midway and then some, he is also drawing upon his 38 years as a military author and researcher to present perspectives on the battle that aren't generally found in other works, particularly the earlier ones. Such perspectives, of course, are the author's personal opinions, and that's where his book becomes vulnerable.

To be sure, Smith's research is utterly awesome, so his stated perspectives are very well founded and should, for the most part, resonate well with almost anyone who does not have already have a very thorough knowledge of the subject. But for those who do, the book has several relatively minor misstatements of fact or interpretation that are subject to correction or at least debate. The good news, though, is that the debatable passages do not significantly detract from an immense body of work that, on balance, deserves to be ranked among the best Battle of Midway histories ever produced. Readers who can get past its occasionally arguable assertions and what appears to be an inordinate number of simple typographical errors should welcome it to their naval history libraries.

I'd actually give it four and a half stars here if I could, since its few shortcomings are enough to deny it an outstanding rating. But given its immense scope and depth of content, it does deserve to be included among the most thorough and therefore useful resources on Midway.

This book contains an astonishing amount of information about the pivotal Battle of Midway -- which is both good and not-so-good. The upside is that there is quite a bit here that I've seen nowhere else. In particular, there are mini-biographies on a great many people, and there's also detailed discussion of the battle's impact on countries other than the United States and Japan.

But there are a number of negatives. For one, the book reads more like a reference tool than a coherent story; the reader feels like he's slogging through a dry textbook, rather than getting lost in an action-packed adventure story. And there are far too many typos and other minor mistakes, such as incorrect dates; one can only conclude that the editor must have been on vacation when this book was going through the publishing process.

More annoying still, the author, Peter C. Smith, comes across as having an "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" attitude. He takes great pains to advance his argument that it was the dive bombers, rather than the torpedo planes, that carried the day at Midway. Well yes, this is indeed true; but it hasn't been a matter of dispute for the past, say, 60 years or so.

And as if it's not enough to present himself as "righter than thou," the author also takes unwarranted potshots at other Midway renditions. For example, he takes the 1976 movie "Midway" to task for allegedly showing the torpedo planes as the victors. While it is true that this film has its faults, that's not one of them; the movie makes it abundantly clear that the torpedo planes scored not one single hit, while the dive bombers knocked out all four Japanese carriers.

Perhaps worst of all is the accusation he makes against the late Walter Lord, who supposedly had the Japanese pilots "dropping . . . concrete blocks and cans of beans on Midway" (Chapter 12, Footnote 65). This is sloppy research (on Mr. Smith's part) at best, and libelous at worst. What Mr. Lord actually said (in "The Riddles of Midway" chapter of "Incredible Victory") was "As the Japanese bombs rained down on Midway a Marine sargeant named Anderson was hit on the bridge of his nose by a flying can of beans, nuts or tomato juice --depending on who tells the story." Making passing note of some conflicting testimony is a far cry from saying that the Japanese actually used blocks and bean cans as weapons!

So all in all, this book has a lot going for it, and a lot detracting from it. The serious Midway student will definitely want to own it and have it available . . . but won't necessarily enjoy actually reading it.

The Dauntless dive bomber was the great equalizer to successfully destroy the four Japanese aircraft carriers during the famous aircraft battle of Midway, June 1942. The author, Peter C.Smith, has told the true and accurate story of the great dive-bomber with his gripping and vivid accounts of the navy carrier pilots that flew the Dauntless. As a Dauntless dive bomber pilot flying off the USS Hornet, through his book I relived my experiences during the three day battle.
CDR Clayton Fisher,USN (RET)

More than 60 years after the Battle of Midway, new books reveal truths and refute myths about the fight that changed the Pacific war's tide. In 2005, Parshall and Tully's Shattered Sword, raised our knowledge, and now we have a British history that analyzes that struggle with even more complete detail, and an objectivity that only an outsider could offer.

Biographies of nearly all the leaders and pilots are provided in more relevant detail and critical frankness than American publishers would dare. Most of the 97 photos of aircraft and men have not been seen before in books, and strong captions are grouped together for easy reference.

Very complete comparisons of aircraft and ships are provided, and descriptions of how Navy planes had to find their way to and from moving targets and ships may stun the GPS generation. Some readers may want to skip those details of the Zero's radio and arresting gear.

Especially valuable aircrew battle impressions often contradict each other, showing why an old war history axiom reminds us that someone actually present in a fight only sees what is in his view. Young people incompletely trained and in their first fight are likely to be mistaken, like those who said they saw Messerschmitts at Midway.

Many historians seem to be seduced by hindsight, not remembering that war success, as well as failure, comes from taking risks. Failure to understand the enemy frustrates many paper plans.

Technical errors happen; the SBD-3's twin flexible mounts were M-2. 30-caliber quickly put out in 1942. The twin .303 caliber mounts were RAF guns fitted to another Douglas bomber, the DB-7B. Computer keyboards caused confusion among B-24/25 and B-26A references.

Midway Dauntless Victory is the most useful single book about that air battle, since careful references and thorough operational comparisons make it possible to trace each issue to the source.

Ray Wagner - San Diego Air & Space Museum - March 27, 2008

The last time I picked up a book on the Battle of Midway, it was Jon Parshall and Tony Tully's Shattered Sword. Considering Shattered Sword being very high regarded and enjoying nearly a "definitive" status, it sets quite a standard to those that follow.

With that said, I think, Peter C. Smith's Midway: Dauntless Victory may have just reached that high standard.

He adopted an approach where he presented all angles of the battle, American and Japanese, new findings and old (some proven wrong) theories. Take the misconception that the Japanese carriers' decks were packed full of aircraft for example, which had since been proven impossible by Jon Parshall and Tony Tully, he continued to express some of the American pilots' views from their recollections that they saw the Japanese decks busy with activity. "Who are we to deny them that memory, misguided or not?", Smith noted. He quoted Ray Wagner, noting that he was merely trying to write "impartially, without fear nor favor, as an historian should".

This book review is reproduced here on Amazon.com with explicit permission and must be published without modification. The original URL at the World War II Database is:

[...]

Needless to say, this is a book that I will recommend.

Background: I am a retired naval officer with extensive combat experience as a gunner on a destroyer raiding the coast of North Vietnam. So I know that getting to the truth of "what happened" is difficult even if/especially if one was a participant in events. Also, I have studied the early Pacific War for most of my adult life. With that, some random thoughts:
1. MDV is probably the best consolidation of the corpus of BOM knowledge extant. It not only consolidates the knowledge, but adds the insight of research not only of this battle, but the universe of technology and military thought available at the time. It will remain the centerpiece of my Midway library for the forseeable future.
2. I appreciate the treatment all of the participants with respect As examples, the warriors of both sides are hailed for their courage and dedication to duty. But even more specifically, it is noted note that the memories of the participants are to be respected, even if they may be wrong. Those who may have "mis-remembered" are not referred to with disdain, but the evidence falls where it may, and lets the reader make up his own mind. Some who have invested emotional capital in one version of the story or another may find that disturbing, but I find it refreshing.
3. The comments about memories are important. In the 2004 US presidential election some vets who had served with candidate John Kerry accused him of being less than a stellar officer and warrior. (They created a new verb: "swiftboating".) Other vets came to Kerry's defense. Folks chose sides as to which story they believed based mostly upon their own prejudices. And that was silly, because any two participants in an action or event are going to remember things differently. I've been to my ship's reunions, and sometimes wondered if my shipmates had been in the same war as I. And in one sense, they had not. We all live in and fight our own war. We just have to go with the preponderance of the evidence. You can't rely upon your own fickle memories. That's why I have researched documents and obtained copies of the deck log of my ship during important periods in order to keep me honest in my own narrative.
In that regard, it was noted that some participants in the Pacific War reported that they saw Messerschmidts or Stukas in the Pacific/Indian Ocean war. Smith implies that the prejudices of the American and British officers who reported the German aircraft was probably to blame. I agree, but I think that there was a contributing factor. Ever since the Spanish Civil War, 109's and Stukas had been a notable part of the newsreels of the day. I think that they became so imbedded in the popular psyche, that enemy fighter = Messerschmidt, and enemy dive bomber = Stuka. My understanding is that the war in China was not so well reported, and certainly there was no emphasis on the technology that the Japanese were using. So when someone sees an effective enemy aircraft, and you couple that with the idea that those "little yellow men" could not possibly have produced such an effective machine, you can see where the problem arises. In stressful situations one follows one's training, whether one recognizes it as training or not. Good Intelligence and effective training should have overcome these mistakes, so the mis-identification has larger implications in those fields.
4. Some folks take the author to task for holding some folks (on both sides) accountable for their errors. Wrong attitutde. Even were I to disagree with him on a given individual, there is no reason not to give a respectful hearing. One of the important lessons to take away from MDV is that the issues, personalities, history, decisions and results were not black and white. Some items will probably never be resolved (What was Ring's course during his initial attack?) In the past few years, those individuals that we in the US know as the "founding fathers", Washington, Adams, Franklin et al have had new biographies written about them that display their flaws as well as their successes. Some have taken that poorly, since it punctures a middle-school mythology that grew up around them. But I find it refreshing. In fact, in my mind, it enhances their reputation, for flawed human beings to have created a system that has worked pretty well, at least until now. In the same sense, the very human flaws on display in the BOM only enhances the triumphs and failures of the narrative.
5. The notes were Superb. Yes, they slowed down the reading. But they added immeasurably to the narrative. They allowed the reader to gain a better understanding of what was happening in the main body. The biographies were helpful, because they helped us understand the mindset of the decision-makers. In addition I was able to track some officers who actually effected my service life years later.
6. I have used the notes and the bibliography to expand my reading list. I have just finished Kernan's book. So MDV is a valuable resource in itself.

Peter C. Smith, a renowed British historian, provides the reader with an academic review of the American victory that marked the changing of the tide in the Pacific War. As a reader with little more than casual knowledge of the Battle of Midway, I found the book to offer a balanced look of the battle from both sides of the conflict.

Immediately following World War II, the Air Force was fighting to establish itself as an independent military service, and the Navy was looking to continue its revolution into using the carrier as the centerpiece of a naval battle group. Therefore, any "official" document put out by either of these organizations immediately after the war, needs to be considered with these historical contexts in place. Smith uses both Japanese and American sources to publish the decisions and sequence of events that may have been exaggerated or neglected by the official battle reports published by both of these military services.

Not only did Smith focus on the order of battle, but he also did an outstanding job of highlighting the many facets of this battle's impact. He reviews both Nimitz' after action report on the battle, and it's long term implication for the US navy. Smith also describes the variables in the calculus equation that defines the international relations of the Pacific powers.

Smith's second appendix, "Midway and the Media" offers a very candid assessment of the impact of the media on the public's view of the Battle of Midway. I have to admit that my knowledge of the battle was impressed at an early age by Henry Fonda's portrayal of Nimitz in the 1976 movie "Midway". Smith calls for a historically accurate documentary that not only correctly portrays the order of battle, but also includes historically accurate movie clips.

Overall, "Midway: Dauntless Victory" is a superbly researched book. It is historically accurate and expertly supported by photographs. The few nautical charts were dispersed throughout the book, and I thought were illogically placed about page 194 instead of in the beginning part of the book where the description of the battle took place. The book is written in plain enough language for the casual reader, but the feel of the book is more of an academic debate. There is no better book than "Midway: Dauntless Victory" to set the record straight.

Smith writes in his conclusion "Then what, in history, was Midway? It was the turning point, the line in the sand when the Japanese overreached themselves and the Americans stood and fought them to a standstill... The Tsunami had met the cliff and, surge though it might, could advance no more." Smith's book has set a high bar for other naval historians to measure up to.

First, let me say that this book is not a narrative history of the Battle of Midway. Instead, it delves into specific details about the battle and discusses the various viewpoints taken by historians, past and present. As such, it is a book written for people (like me) who already know a great deal about the battle, and about the historical discussions and controversies associated with it.

Unfortunately, for a book that looks into aspects of the Battle of Midway in fine detail, there are an appalling number of typos and obvious (and some not so obvious) factual gaffes that, in my mind, render the author's credentials questionable. Things like referring Spruance's task force TF-6 instead of TF-16, or the Devastator torpedo bomber as a TBM instead of a TBD, or getting the US squadron commmanders mixed up, attributing aircrew accounts to the wrong squadrons, or worst of all, getting the date of the battle wrong (4 May instead of 4 June)! While none of these errors are carried throughout the book, but they all appear more than once. Either this book was very poorly proofread and edited, or the writer really doesn't know the details of the battle as well as I think he should to write a definitive investigation such as this.

I'm giving this book 3 stars, because it does contain some good insights into the battle and its impact on WW2, but this book really needs to be reissued in a revised edition with all of the blatant mistakes fixed!

I wanted to enjoy this work, and to learn from it--as I am not a Midway expert at all-- but the dismal editing and structural incongruities of the book made that an impossibility. This it shares with certain other works by the (sometimes too-) prolific military historian-author Peter C. Smith.
Apart from the bloated footnotes--many of them nothing but padding, e.g., the IJN officer biogs cribbed from Hiroshi Nishida's Materials & People of the Imperial Navy website, I suppose--are a number of criticisms that smack more of frustrated egos than substantive points. To continue to clamor some sixty years after that the VBs of the USN carrier groups didn't receive enough acclaim following the battle(s) struck me in particular as an unworthy display of wounded vanity.

This book might have made a nice enough little study at half the size--and price!!!--with the notes reduced by fifty percent or more, and far less American nitpicking against fellow Americans, as in the continued criticisms directed against Frank Jack Fletcher. To argue that we didn't achieve enough at Midway, and that Fletcher was somehow to blame for this (criticism v. Marc Mitscher is more well-founded) seems the height of Monday-morning presumptiousness.

Not worth the original (& hefty) hardback price, but completists will still want the book, warts & all. If you MUST have it, at least try to find it secondhand, and do your wallet as well as your senses a favor. However, one could easily live without this work, in my estimate, and "make do" with far better modern works by John Lundstrom or Parshall & Tully, along with the older classics by Lord, Prange, & Layton. I have reluctantly given it three stars, hating to slam a PacWar author of such contributions--sometimes quantity as opposed to quality must count for a little, after all-- although that may have been unnecessarily generous.