An unfortunate fact of history that it is inherently selective. The choices of a historian at the moment of writing, what they choose to deem as unimportant and events of 'history' will reverberate in the collective perception of the past for eons to come. As Carr poses to us: "What is the criterion that distinguishes the facts of history from the facts about the past?". The filtration and grading of historical fact from occurrences of the past is a necessary, but saddening element of historical consumption, leading to millions of stories deemed unworthy of telling to be forgotten. The naval element of the Second World War is a well documented and exciting timeline riddled with events that would change the way countries would fight on the seas forever. Taranto, Pearl, Force Z, Bismarck, Coral, Midway, Guadacanal, Leyte, Ten-go... These are words that are etched in the collective WW2 memory for their stories of grandeur, revenge and innovation. Little attention is given to the naval logistics of the war, the convoys that sailed across the world to keep nations fed, guns loaded, tanks fuelled. There is comparatively little excitement in their experience, and history has chosen to mostly forget their stories. 'The Pilot, The Sailor and The Arctic Snow' is a tale of two adversaries destined never to truly meet, within a campaign that depite being little known, dangled very nations in its balance. Within the crystal of their experience, the importance of millions of other stories, forgotten to the careless and sloppy hand of history, are reflected within the banshee like winds off the coast of Iceland and the groan of metal hulls as lives are consigned beneath the waves.