No, this is a special CG in relation to the upcoming event since the event will focus on the Surigao Strait. Since most of the Nishimura Fleet have been getting special treatment they decided to make sure Mogami got a piece of the pie as well.
Serious Mogami, either we're changing history or we're repeating it
Nothing to do with history. This is a new war in the present day of the setting, just with old grudges being played out. Shoehorning real history into kanmusu backgrounds is one thing but saying it's revision if the player controlled Japanese ships win is really stretching things
What kind of mobile game allows an endgame player to be canonically crushed by AI enemies outside of the tutorial anyway?
Nothing to do with history. This is a new war in the present day of the setting, just with old grudges being played out. Shoehorning real history into kanmusu backgrounds is one thing but saying it's revision if the player controlled Japanese ships win is really stretching things
What kind of mobile game allows an endgame player to be canonically crushed by AI enemies outside of the tutorial anyway?
Well, there are games like Halo: Reach where the whole point is that you're all going down in one giant blaze of glory right from the get-go, but even if we restrict it just to mobile games, then there have been several mobile games very much like KanColle that had real downer endings after the company that was running them decided to shut them down. Someone mentioned a DMM (as in, the makers of KanColle) game that was basically a Love Live knockoff involving collecting high school idols singing to save their high school, which they failed at doing when the game wasn't profitable, so they then declared all the high school girls were now forced into prostitution, and re-released the game with the same characters as a porn management sim.
Besides that, though, if this had nothing to do with history, why's it explicitly Surigao Straight and explicitly requiring Nishimura's fleet? It's a far better argument to say this isn't revisionist history on the basis that they're not in the past at all, but attempting to repeat events deliberately while trying to get a different outcome just to have their own emotional closure.
Also, 'revisionist history' doesn't mean, "based upon real history and actual facts, but seeing how things could have turned out differently if a few things were different," that's alternative history. Revisionist history is saying, "Don't believe those Allied propagandist lies! Hitler LOVED Jews, and was just trying to help them mingle freely throughout society without fear or prejudice!"
Revisionist history is saying, "Don't believe those Allied propagandist lies! Hitler LOVED Jews, and was just trying to help them mingle freely throughout society without fear or prejudice!"
By a strange coincidence, I happen to have just completed a graduate-level course on historiography and historical methodology yesterday, and, well: Not as such, no.
If anything, genuine revisionism--that is to say, revisionism that is genuine scholarship--swings toward the opposite pole. Revisionist historians tend to believe that the history of a person or event has been idealized in the "orthodox" version, and often that important facts have been overlooked or elided in order to present that idealized version. Through analysis and presentation of new evidence, and/or re-examination of that which already existed, they are (in their view) challenging the received wisdom in order to set the record straight. In practice it's often very much about the tearing down of idols.
Super-simplified-for-web-comments example: the cause of World War I.
Orthodox view, established before the war was even over: The Germans started the Great War (unspoken subtext: because they're bad people and starting wars is what they do).
Revisionist position: The causes of World War I were almost incomprehensibly complicated, and represent a general failure of basically everyone who was in charge of anything in Europe from about 1890 up until the outbreak of the war, very much including but by no means limited to the leaders of Germany, to get anything right.
Another major example of revisionist history is the contemporary push toward viewing the founders of the United States as flawed, contentious, and often hypocritical individuals who often accomplished amazing things in spite of themselves and each other, as against the orthodox grade-school view of them as a unified, indivisible pantheon of shining, irreproachable demigods who could do no wrong.
What you're describing above isn't revisionism, which is a sincere (if sometimes misguided) effort to improve the historical understanding of evidence. It's the historiographical equivalent of Lysenko-Lamarckian genetics--absurdly, blatantly wrong, and so easily proven to be so that it could only find wide acceptance in the kind of violent police state where people accept things they know to be false in order to not get shot. That's not revisionism; it isn't even scholarship. It's just negationism, bordering on newspeak.
TL;DR: Revisionists' positions may be controversial; they may, upon still closer examination, even turn out to be wrong. Negationists, by and large, are just plain lying, and they either know it, or have been duped by someone who does.
Historical revisionism is scholarly work that is capable of causing people to revise their previously held understanding of history.
Revisionist history (which Wikipedia apparently NOW classifies as "Historical Negationism" and "Denialism", presumably because backpage politics, since the page doesn't even manage to consistently avoid saying "revisionism") is propaganda and lies.
People wouldn't be complaining about KanColle doing scholarly work uncovering new evidence about World War 2, but that's obviously not what's happening. People who criticize KanColle for its message are saying that they're white-washing the IJN and oversimplifying history to make Imperial Japan look like knights in shining armor who were trying to save the world from an absolute and monstrous evil in World War 2, because they see too much bluriness between the historical elements and the fantastic ones.
I think it's more about semantics and trying to redefine words to fit the idea.
At any rate, Kancolle itself is neither revisionist history nor historical revisionism.
We're in an Alternate Universe. What happened in our world may have influenced their past, but what's happening in Kancolle right now is not. This is a game where we're playing out a "what could have been" if things were different. I think that fits in nicely with the "alternate history" category, since it has no bearing on our current understanding of history.
