The predominant Western theory on the Battle of Midway has until fairly recently relied on one primary Japanese source-the testimony of a Fuchida Mitsuo, air commander of the Japanese carrier Akagi, flagship of Japan's carrier force. This resulted in a certain narrative that the victory at Midway was "a miracle" or "incredible" or, as one more recent publication states, "God was at Midway."

More recent scholarship has examined the Japanese side of the battle in more detail, examining other sources which at first glance seem obvious to examine-for instance, the government official history of the war, and primary documents from the Japanese carriers. These have told a very different story-namely, that there was no miracle: instead, there was a buildup of continual operational, strategic, and systematic errors that made the Japanese defeat inevitable.

To be clear, revisionism isn't necessarily a bad thing. Certain kinds of politically motivated, bias based revisionism is negative, but views on certain historical topics and methods of historiography are changed pretty regularly. IE our view of the Eastern Front post-70's, or our knowledge of ancient city states changing our view of the development of farming.

The view that North and South America were sparsely populated and people there had little to no effect on the environment was a view that has only recently been challenged.

The best example of successful modern 'revisionism' I can think of is Herbert Bix's book on Emporer Hirohito, claiming that he played an active role in Japan's war time decisions.

This is contrary to the narrative advanced by the U.S. government that 'militarists' were responsible, which went largely unchallenged for 50 years. It is a fascinating idea, that the U.S. government lied to its own people about Hirohito's responsibility in order to advance post-war goals.