You are on page 1of 16

Primary Sources Adamczyk, Joseph. "Pearl Harbor Speech: World War II.

" World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 15 Jan. 2013.

The author of this source was Joseph Adamczyk, a German writer who was a part of the Nazi party from 1931-1935. This piece was published as a book sometime between 1941 and 1946. The intended audience was people who had not heard about President FDRs speech after Pearl Harbor or people who just wanted more analysis on his famous speech. The purpose of this document is to give people a deeper analysis of his speech and what he meant when he said what he said. The huge bias in this source is that the author is from Germany who, at that point in time, was in war with the United States.

American History, s.v. "Naval dispatch announcing attack on Pearl Harbor," Image, Library of Congress, accessed January 2, 2013. http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/.

This primary source is an image of the Naval dispatch from Pearl Harbor to Washington, D.C., written by the Commander In Chief of the Pacific Fleet to the Commander of the Atlantic Fleet, making the latter the intended audience. It was written on December 7th, 1941, the day Pearl Harbor was attacked. It was published as a telegram, which was the only method of long distance communication at the time. The document reads: "Air raid Pearl Harbor. This is no drill." Short and to the point, it can be inferred that the Commander in Chief wrote this very hastily. There is not much to the document; those 8 words explain the whole meaning of the message being conveyed. There is definitely a bias, however. If the Commander in Chief had enough time to write a telegram during the attack, then writing more would not have taken very much time. Later, we know he was the one responsible for the lack of readiness of his men. He could have left this out, which may have bought him innocence for a short period of time. Other than that, the only bias is fear due to the fact that the base was under attack.

Gorman, Jaqueline Laks. Pearl Harbor: A Primary Source History. Pleasantville, NY: Gareth Stevens Publishing, 2009

Jaqueline Laks Gorman is an author of many non-fiction, informational books in a wide variety of topics who graduated from Columbia University in 1983. She published Pearl Harbor: A Primary Source History in 2009 as a general released novel. Gorman intended the book to be for middle and high school kids looking for quick information on the bombings at Pearl Harbor. The main idea of this document is that it is summarizing what happened before, during and after the bombings, how it took place, and the aftermath. This document uses a textbook - like format to display detailed images from the time as well as brief, but straight - forward information.

Gunnison, Royal Arch. No Bombing of Manila. New York Times, December 8, 1941, Frontpage, Northeast edition.

This source is an article written by Royal Arch Gunnison, and he published this article on the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and he published it in Manila, Philippines to the famous New York Times newspaper. This article was published as a piece on the frontpage of that days paper and issued across the whole country for everyone to read. The intended audience of this article is the adults of the country, hoping to give them information about how the U.S. planned to respond to attacked. During the time of this article being published, the U.S. had just been surprise attacked by Japan. Japan had taken fighter planes and attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. The main idea of this article is that the U.S. is planning to retaliate on Japan immediately , as they decided n having their planes head for Japan from Manila. A quote from the article that supports this main idea is, Army Planes roar North. The bias of this author is that he is not actually in America, so he does not know what the decisions being made by the military really are. He has not included information about anything the President, who is the overall decision maker, has said about retaliation as a result of the bias. We, as a group, have a better understanding of our topic as a result of reading this article because it helped give an idea of the plans the U.S. had for retaliation. We plan to use this document to answer one of our RTQs and use that answer in our website as part of the immediate effects.

Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. "Ex parte Endo (1944)," accessed December 28, 2012. http://issues.abc-clio.com/

The author of this source was the Supreme Court justice system of the United States of America. This document was created in July of 1944 and was issued as a government release form for a

prisoner. The intended audience is the citizens of the United States of America. At the time of this document, Japanese Americans were being persecuted in the United States by the government out of fear that they were spies for the Japanese in World War II. About 120,000 Japanese Americans were taken from their homes and put into concentration camps out in the western part of the country. The purpose of this document is to explain the release of Japanese American, Mitsuye Endo, from the Tule Lake War Relocation Center in California. She was treated unconstitutionally at this camp and has been given her freedom. The key bias is that this was created by the United States, who was at war with the Japanese at the time. The creators were very biased when making this law, which was its intent.

Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. "Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)," accessed January 17, 2013. http://issues.abc-clio.com/

The author of this document is the Supreme Court justice system of the United States of America. This law was published and went into effect in May of 1943. The intended audience was Japanese Americans in the United States. They were now supposed to know that they had a curfew for being out of their homes. When this law was created, Japanese Americans were being persecuted in the United States by the government out of fear that they were spies for the Japanese in World War II. About 120,000 Japanese Americans were taken from their homes and put into concentration camps out in the western part of the country. The purpose of this document is to let these people know that they should be inside their homes by 8:00 PM every night. A major bias is that this was created by the United States, who was at war with the Japanese at the time. So they were obviously very biased when making this law, and that was its intent.

Lawton, Clive A. "Unconditional Surrender." Hiroshima: The Story of the First Atom Bomb. Cambridge: Candlewick, 2004. Print.

Clive A. Lawton is a British author, as well as an educator and broadcaster. He is most famous for educating the youths of today on the events that happened during the holocaust. A popular website that was reviewing his book The Story of the Holocaust said about his book, Young readers will come away with a better understanding of the relationship between the events and the devastation." Lawtons book, Hiroshima: The Story of the First Atom Bomb, is one that gives

a detailed description to the event that ended World War II. Not only does it provide pictures from the attacks, it also gives events that led up to Hiroshima, as well as the immediate and long term effects the bombs being dropped had on both Japan and the world we live in today with the invention of the atomic bomb Lawtons main idea about the bombs being dropped on Hiroshima is that it was the definite end to the war. An example from the source that backs up this main idea is on page 30, Even after the devastation caused by the two atom bombs,some members of the Japanese government still could not agree to a surrender...Finally, on August 15, the emperor told the Japanese people in a radio broadcast that the war was over. Lawton is saying that the surrender is a direct correlation to the droppings of the two atomic bombs. Another example that backs up the authors main idea is when he says, To surrender seemed to them an insult to their ruler, and an end to their 1,000 year-old culture...Only after Emperor Hirohito was persuaded of the need for it did the government accept unconditional surrender. The demand by the U.S. for the Japanese to surrender was right after they dropped the bombs, so the fact that Japan accepted it surrender means that they knew the bombing was the end of the war, backing up Lawtons thesis. The bias of this source is that the author was not actually aware of the conversations and debating that went on between the Japanese government about the decision to surrender. The Japanese could have been planning to surrender anyways or might have thought that Hitlers suicide or a different battle marked the end of the war for them. Actual quotes from the emperor or members of the Japanese government are not included due to this bias. We better understand our topic from this source because it helps us to know how the U.Ss involvement in the war changed the outcome. We plan on using this information as part of our long term affects of our turning point when creating our website.

Moores, James. "Pearl Harbor survivor looks back on attack 70 years ago." Interview by Larry Alexander (Deer Park, Ohio, 6 December, 2011) Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNVAnfqE1c On December 6, 2011 Larry Alexander met with army veteran James Moores to discuss his recollection of the attack on Pearl Harbor 60 years ago. This interview was conducted and published to youtube and the intended audience was those who wanted a real story or to just learn more about Pearl Harbors attack. During this time of the document, the men and women who were still alive and part of the army/navy at Pearl Harbor during the attack were being celebrated and thanked for their service and protection. The main idea of this document is that no matter how young or old you were during the attack, you still remember exactly what you did after you heard that first explosion. Moores and his fellow cadets were using Browning .318 light machine guns to shoot down the planes. However, the interviewer does have a bias in his questions and that is that he didnt ask any questions about the goods that came out of the attack, like the nation became closer, the U.S. came into the war and eventually ended all threats, and that the defenses of the coasts did get stronger after. With this interview we learned more about what it was like to be on the island and we used this information in the turning point itself section to give viewers a firsthand experience.

Oravecz, Frank Thomas. Interview with Thomas A. Swope. Printed Interview. Curtland, Ohio, September 11, 2003. Library of Congress http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/vhp/story/loc.natlib.afc200100 1.09510/.

On September 11, 2003, Thomas A. Swope went to Curtland, Ohio to interview Navy veteran Frank Thomas Oravecz at the rightful age of 88, who was on the island of Hawaii during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Thomas A. Swope is the author and publisher of this interview and it was published on October 26, 2011 to the Library of Congress databases. Swope chose, in this interview, to first record it and then transcript it, allowing people to access it for free in multiple versions. The intended audience of this source is a person of any age who wants a better and firsthand understanding of what happened during the attack of Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. The main idea of this interview is that the morning, as well months after the attack, was hectic and chaotic, not just a quick sneak attack that killed a few people. Oravecz allows everyone to see how it impacted him, as well as every other person on the island, both mentally and physically. The bias of this interview is that Swope only gets the sides of the attack that were negative. Although it was a horrible attack, it did bring the nation closer together as each person felt sympathy towards those involved with the attack, it did provide a wake-up call for the United States, showing that our nation was not invincible, and it did change the outcome of World War II in a good way. The information about how our country came together and how our involvement in the war changed the outcome is not included in this interview due to the bias.This source better helped us understand what specifically happened during the attacks, and we plan on using this source for to give a firsthand description of the attack, via quotes, on our website.

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. "Declaration of War against Japan." Washington, DC. 8 Dec. 1941. Address. http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/fdr-infamy.htm

Franklin Delano Roosevelts address urging Congress to declare war on Japan was delivered on December 8th, 1941 in front of Congress. More specifically, he was addressing the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The day before, on December 7th, Japanese military forces suddenly attacked Pearl Harbor Naval Base, located on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. FDR, as commander-in-chief of the United States military, is stating that the defense of the nation is the militarys highest priority. Roosevelt also claims that the attack was premeditated by the Japanese government,

which at the same time was falsely maintaining it desired peace throughout countries in the Pacific Ocean. As President of the United States, Roosevelt obviously had the best intentions for his country in mind. However, when addressing the public, the President did not want to say anything rash or unnecessary; he made his case against Japan, yet did so concisely and efficiently. As support to the nation, Roosevelt expressed his belief in the people by assuring that America would achieve absolute victory no matter what adversities they faced.

World History: The Modern Era. "Treaty of Kanagawa (1854)," accessed December 17, 2012. http://worldhistory.abc-clio.com/.

This document, known as the Kanagawa Treaty, was a key factor in pre-WWII relations between the United States and Japan. The document was written by Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry, a rather well-known Naval officer at the time. As the document's name implies, the treaty was established at Kanagawa, Japan. It was written on March 31st, 1854. The intended audiences were both the American and Japanese governments. At the time that the document was written, Japan was a very isolated country. This treaty began a new era in Japan, one influenced by other nations. The main idea of the treaty is to establish American trade in Japan, and also to establish a U.S. embassy in Tokyo. The key bias in the source is that of Commodore Perry. The President explains how he trusts Perry infinitely. Both the President and the Commodore's goals are to help the United States prosper; besides opening trade up with the United States, Japan got hardly anything from this treaty. This source helped us understand our topic because maybe the Japanese were angry they got nothing from this treaty.

Secondary Sources Cooke, Tim, Edward Horton, Christer Jorgensen, Matthew Hughes, Chris McNab, Donald Somerville, Robert Stewart, and Ian Westwell. History of World War II. Volume I: Origins and Outbreak ed. New York: Marshall Cavendish, 2005. Print. gggggggTim Cooke is the main author of History of World War II: Volume I. He has also written 58 other gggggggbooks that provide information about events and periods in history, from the Aztecs all the way ggggggf the Gulf War in Iraq. He is the Great War Historian at the Canadian War Museum and a gggggggprofessor at Carleton University. His main idea of the section we used, which was called gggggggAmerica before the war, was that the Great Depression was one of the reasons why we were gggggggso vulnerable for attack. He backs this up by saying that more people were focused on the Great

gggggggDepression and not paying attention to the overseas war that was unfolding. He also says that gggggggwe did not have enough money due to the Depression to keep our defenses up and protect the gggggggcoastlines. His bias is that he does not consider or reveal Japans situation before the attack, so gggggggreaders do not if there was something that made them want to attack us. With this source, we gggggggused it for our before section of the website to give viewers an idea of what was happening in gggggggAmerica before the attack. This source helped us to understand the specific details of the Great gggggggDepression and how it related to the World War and Pearl Harbor.

Eisenhower Center for American Studies. "Pearl Harbor." The World War II Desk Reference. Ed. Michael E. Haskew and Douglas Brinkley. New York, New York: Harpercollins, 2008. 33-35.

Douglas Brinkley is one of the countrys premier historians; Brinkleys mentor Stephen Ambrose called him "the best of the new generation of American historians. He has written over 20 books, and co-edited many more. Michael E. Haskew had less information available about him, but he too has also written multiple books about World War II. Both editors are knowledgeable when it comes to World War II history. The main idea of these pages is that the Japanese intentionally feigned peace with the United States, while simultaneously planning an attack on a key American naval base. Knowing quite well the strength of the United States military, leaders of the Japanese forces felt a preemptive raid was necessary to cripple its Pacific fleet. During all of this, Japanese Ambassador to the United States Kichisaburo Nomura was trying to establish peace between the two countries. The United States intercepted a Japanese message from Tokyo, strongly suggesting an attack on the US was imminent. One of the United States most fatal decisions in history came next; assuming their domestic defenses were too strong, they dismissed the attack as a meager threat. The result was a catastrophe. As a semi-detailed overview, not every minor detail is revealed in this chapter; a whole recap of the military history of 1941 could consume a whole book. As good historians do, little to no bias is included in Brinkley and Haskews account of the attack.

Eysturlid, Lee. "What if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor? December 7, 1941: As Events Actually Occurred. Accessed January 3, 2013. http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/.

The author of this piece is Dr. Lee Eysturlid, a professor at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy and he earned his PhD in history at Purdue University. This was published in March of

2009 and it was issued as a historical essay which only published on the ABC Clio website. The intended audience is just anyone in around high school and up looking for general knowledge on what happened on December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor. The main idea of the document is to give a play by play of the attacks on Pearl Harbor in that time period. One bias I that I see is that Dr. Eysturlid is an American author, which would make him favor the Allies over the axis powers.

Ferraro, Vincent Relations with Japan 1938-1940, from US Department of State, Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943): pgs. 87-97, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/japan.htm (accessed October 19, 2012)

Vincent Ferraro is the international politics professor at Mount Holyoke College, located in South Hadley, Massachusetts. He has received a bachelors degree in the arts from Dartmouth College and a PhD from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He certainly knows what hes talking about when it comes to relations between countries. Ferraro explains how tolerant the United States was to Japans ignorance of peace treaties they had signed previously. Prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, there was much friction between the United States and Japanese governments. The Japanese were violating a peace treaty they had signed with the United States by bombing innocent Chinese citizens. The United States believed that countries who had signed treaties of peace with them were responsible for upholding the values of themselves in addition to their own. As an act of retaliation, the United States passed the Export Control Act which banned manufacturers here in America from supplying the Japanese with iron, steel, or any type of equipment that could be remotely helpful to building airplanes. Obviously, Ferraro is biased towards the United States. Being a citizen here, he explains the United States reasoning behind their actions better than Japans; he makes Japan sound like crazy, reasonless tyrants. Had the source been written by a non-American, more information on the part of the Japanese may have been provided.

Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society "Japanese American internment," accessed January 17, 2013. http://issues.abc-clio.com/.

There is no definitive author for this source, but it was published in the Understanding Controversy and Society reading. The author states that Japanese Americans were thriving in

small villages in cities from San Diego to Seattle despite all the Anti-Asian racism at the time. He also notes that within 24 hours of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans were being persecuted out of fear and anger of what happened. The key biases of this source are that this document was told and written about a Japanese American who was persecuted harshly at this time. So, she could still be angry at Americans for her mistreatment and lash out at them through this writing.

Lombardy, Dana. "Pearl Harbor as Setup: World War II." World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 14 Jan. 2013

Dana Lombardy is a historian residing in San Francisco. He earned a degree in history from San Diego State University, and a bachelors degree from California State University. Although this historians background may be not as qualified as others, ABC-Clio published his article, which is a reliable source. The main purpose of this article is to question a possible conspiracy. Prior to 1941, the United States was well aware that Germany was taking innocent Jews captive and murdering them by the millions. Because they could not prove this, there was no reason for Roosevelt to declare war on the United States. The author, as well as many others, believed that Roosevelt baited the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, which would then give the United States an initiative to attack both axis powers. The author states that Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald wrote a book that indicts the Roosevelt administration of sacrificing a good portion of the US Navy in order to have an excuse to join the war. However, there is definitely a bias present. Upon further investigation, Theobald was relieved of his duties after the attack. He may have written the book out of pure rage at Roosevelts failure to better defend the island, nobody will ever know. Dana Lombardy is potentially biased in the sense that he believes in the alleged conspiracy.

McAvoy, Audrey. "10th anniversary for Attack Against Pearl Harbor Was Quiet", The Commercial Appeal. Memphis, TN. Accessed November 29, 2012. http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/sep/11/quiet-10th-for-attack-against-pearlharbor/

This magazine article, published in the The Commercial Appeal in Memphis, Tennessee on September 11th, 2011 explains how much less remembered the 10th anniversary of Pearl Harbor

was than the 10th anniversary of the 9/1 terrorist attacks. The author, Audrey McAvoy, is a writer for the Associated Press. He explains how although the two domestic attacks were very similar, they did not each get the same amount of recognition. 10 years after Pearl Harbor, the Korean War was occurring. Headlines were filled with stories of soldiers being ambushed and killed the day before, not the attack that happened 10 years before. McAvoy also notes how the day after 9/11, many editors went back through old newspapers and adopted headlines to describe the catastrophe that had happened the day before. McAvoy is very critical of people in 1951 for not remembering the attacks of 10 years before, but acknowledges that a very crucial battle was being fought in Korea that drew the attention of most of the population, which was his key bias. This helped us to understand the source better by giving us a comparison of how people reacted 10 years after the occurrence of our topic, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, in relation to 10 years after the attacks of 9/11, which we all remember quite vividly.

Meskill, Johanna. Hitler and Japan: The Hollow Alliance. New York: Atherton Press, 1966.

Johanna Meskill is a historian who had her book used in an article on ABC-Clio. The article is about the Tripartite Pact, which was the formation of the axis powers. Italy and Germany were controlled by their leaders Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, two dictators responsible for the conquer of Europe and Eastern Asia. Japan was responsible for the conquer of Western Asia and the Pacific Islands. Meskill gets at the fact that the Pact was extremely loose; it had the option to be cancelled at any time, and could be renewed in 10 years. It also allowed other agreements, such as the one between Germany and the Soviet Union, to stay in effect. Meskill sounds skeptical about the Pact, which is the key bias. The point of view of the document is from a person that did not support the Axis beliefs.

Mueller, John. Pearl Harbor: Military Inconvenience, Political Disaster. International Security 172-173, Vol. 16, no. 3 (Winter 1992-1993), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539091 (accessed November 29, 2012)

John Mueller is a well-known historian who received his A.B. from the University of Chicago in 1960 and his Masters Degree from UCLA in 1965. His specialty is the field of international relations. He has published dozens of books, all printed from reliable printing offices, such as those of Oxford University and Cornell University Press. In these two pages, Mueller condemns

the attack on Pearl Harbor, saying that apart from the loss of so many lives there was no point for the Japanese to attack. Much of the equipment destroyed by the Japanese was obsolete and needed to be replaced anyways, and would have had a very small impact had war broken out beforehand. Mueller also says that people believe the attack on Pearl Harbor much worse than it actually was; the media blew it out of proportion to get people to enlist and fight the Japanese, which in fact helped the United States. When the dust eventually settles, Mueller believes that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a horrible decision made by Japan. There is a small bias here, and that is Mueller proving wrong public opinion. As far as the facts go, everything is presented, giving a fair account of both sides of the story. We used this information in our project on the Effects slide, given the fact it is an excellent explanation of fairly obvious facts.

Paul K. Davis. "Pearl Harbor Attack. Accessed January 21, 2013.

The authors main idea in this document is to explain what happened on Pearl Harbor and give a step by step analysis of what happened. He explains that the Japanese tried to cover up their attack by showing peace to the United States months before the attack. He also notes that Pearl Harbor was the worst naval disaster in U.S. history. The author of this source is a very credible historian with a storied career in writing. One key bias I see is that the author of the source is from the United States and he is writing about a war between the U.S. and Japan, so he would obviously lean toward the United States if he were to be biased.

Reilly, Robin L.. Kamikaze attacks of World War II: a complete history of Japanese suicide strikes on American ships, by aircraft and other means. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 2010.

Robin L. Rielly, who is the author of this secondary source about the Japanese kamikazes, has also written books on the rest Japanese art of karate. She received her Ph.D for Social Sciences at Syracuse University. She also majors in womens and genders studies and is a member of the LGBT. The authors main idea of the book is that the kamikaze, although deadly for the pilot, was a very strategic and powerful war tactic. She backs this up when she says in the chapter about Pearl Harbor that the only reason the attack was successful was because the planes acted as large bombs when hitting the ships, sinking them easily. Another way she backs up this main idea is when she says that there were more casualties caused by kamikazes then casualties caused by the machine guns and torpedoes on the planes. The bias, however, of the document

is that Rielly only uses information that makes kamikazes sound beneficial to the Japanese army. It is not revealed how much extra this costed the Japanese to make the planes and it doesnt reveal how many pilots the Japanese lost. This source is used in the section called the turning point.

Ruzicka, Dee. Historic American Engineering Record of Pearl Harbor. Honolulu: Mason Architects, Inc., 2010. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/hi/hi0000/hi0092/data/hi0092data.pdf

Dee Ruzicka joined Mason Architects as an architectural historian in 2001. He received a B.A. in American History from the University of Hawaii, Manoa in 1996, a M. A., American Studies in 1999, and a Graduate Certificate in Historic Preservation in 1999. This report was filed to analyze the damage done by the Japanese to the Bravo Docks at Pearl Harbor naval base when they bombed it on December 7, 1941. As a historian, he wanted to understand how the docks werent bombed as much as others on the other side of the island. As an architect, he was able to come up with a technical reason why they remained intact during the bombing. He found out they were made up of concrete reinforced with steel, unlike the older, concrete-only docks that were destroyed. This may seem like a boring report, but Ruzicka believed that if all the other dock had been updated like the Bravo series of docks, then they may have held up better during the course of the bombing. Considering Ruzicka is both a historian and architect, he knows what he is talking about in both subjects. There is no evident bias in this report. It is only direct observations from the National Historic Site with no opinions included that cannot be proven. This report helped to understand the topic better in the sense that it gave a better explanation for why the destruction was as severe as it was.

Spector, Ronald H. Eagle Against the Sun: The American War With Japan. New York, New York: Macmillan, 1985. 1-7.

Ronald H. Spector is a Yale graduate with a Ph.D. in history. His area of interest and expertise is the history of US foreign policy and modern naval and military history. He is currently employed at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. as Professor of History and Internal Affairs. This publication of his won the Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt Prize for naval history the year it was published. Spector also served two stints in the Marine Corps, from 1967-1969 and 1983-1984. The seven pages we gathered information from was an overview of the attack,

but much more specific than others we had previously researched. Rather than explaining, for instance, how many American planes the Japanese destroyed, he explained how the planes were lined up wingtip-to-wingtip in order to protect against sabotage. As far as bias goes, Spector is slightly biased towards the United States. As an American citizen and ex-military personnel, Spector would be hard pressed to resist from expressing his anger with the Japanese. However, as a qualified history teacher, he knows to minimize the bias in order for the best historical accuracy possible.

Stone, Isidor Feinstein. War Comes to Washington. from The War Years 1939-1945: A Nonconformist History of Our Times. Washington, D.C.: 1988. 92-94.

I.F. Stone was born Isidor Feinstein Stone in 1907, which would make him 32 around the time World War II began. Stone was an esteemed investigative journalist and author. Although Stone has very few academic accolades, he still has much respect among historians and readers nationwide. He graduated from high school 49th out of his class of 52, and later dropped out of from UPenn. Stone was not so much focused on the historical aspect of the war; he recorded the various reactions he witnessed from different groups of individuals and wrote about them in an unbiased way. In the section we adopted, Stone was telling about the reactions of government departments such as the War and Navy Departments. The information he presents is interesting, because it may be the second or third source that is directly related to our topic but does not take place at Pearl Harbor. The books title makes it clear that Stones publication is from a nonconformist point-of-view, which creates potential for a bias. Remember, Stone did not graduate college, so he most likely does not know how to hide his bias.

Stone, Scott C.S. Pearl Harbor: The Way It WasDecember 7, 1941. Honolulu: Island Heritage Limited, 1977.

Scott C.S. Stone is a writer in residence at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. To quote the vice chancellor of academic affairs, Bill Chen, "Mr. Stone is an eminent writer of history, biography, novels, and more," said Chen. "To quote Shakespeare, he's 'a man of many parts,' and we are very lucky to have him." This book is primarily an exposure of never-before-printed photographs

of the attack, but just as much a history of the battle. Like its title says, the book also tells a lot about the routines of the sailors and what happened the morning of December 7th, 1941. Some parts even give accounts of actual Japanese fighter pilots. Due to the fact that Scott is a native of Hawaii, he is slightly biased against the Japanese. He does give the story of Japanese soldiers, but makes them sound like brutal and vicious people. This book gave an insight to the attitude and personality of Japanese soldiers, helping for us to better understand why the battle ended the way it did.

Taylor, Maxine. "America Remembers the 70th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor: Overview." World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 14 Jan. 2013.

Maxine Taylor is an editor based out of Santa Barbara, California. She graduated the University of California at Santa Barbara with a degree in Literature, and a minor in history. As far as this article goes, it does not cover a whole lot of the detailed history of the attack on Pearl Harbor; it is more of a memorandum than an analytical report. The article reiterates the numbers of total losses of both the attacked and the attackers. Again, her objective in writing this article is to notify people that on December 7, 2011, a ceremony will be held to remember those that lost their lives, but also to celebrate the resilience of the American people to bounce back and win the war. There is not much opportunity for bias here; the number of losses she talks about includes both sides, and the rest of the article is just a heads up for anyone wishing to attend the services.

U.S. Navy. "Fact Sheet: Pearl Harbor." U.S. Navy Museum. U.S. Navy, 31 Jan. 2009. (Accessed November 4, 2012) <http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/teach/pearl/aftermath/facts.htm>.

This fact sheet was compiled by the United States Navy after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The information was put together to show how significant the losses were for the U.S. as a result of the attack. At 7:55 Hawaii Time, 65 Japanese aquatic vessels commenced the attack by sea, accompanied by a first wave of 183 aircraft. A second wave of Japanese planes, amounting to 170 in all, included level-bombers, dive-bombers, and a few dozen fighters. Among soldiers, sailors, Marines, and civilians, 2405 were killed and 1178 were wounded. 21 American ships were lost, 3 of those being battleships. One of the first targets of the Japanese was the USS Arizona, one of the fleets most powerful battleships. A

Japanese armor-piercing bomb collided with the Arizonas forward magazine, instantly killing 1170 sailors. Comparing the staggering number of U.S. casualties to the lower-than-expected number of Japan, one asks themselves how that is so. The objective of this fact sheet is to remind the nation of Japans cowardly attack on a defenseless Navy base. It could even be said that remembering the vicious attack on Pearl Harbor was one of the most powerful motivations the United States had on its way to victory in World War II. A key bias here is that there is little to no written information besides captions of pictures. The United States knew an attack was imminent, but regarded it as a harmless threat. Also, not all numbers of Japanese losses are present on the sheet. Had all of the numbers been present, it would be clear that, despite being attacked, the United States military put up a ferocious fight to defend their country, which goes against the point of the fact sheet.

Wallace, William N.. "Pushing Aside Games for a World War." New York Times (New York City), December 7, 1991. http://hn.bigchalk.com/hnweb/hn/do/document?set=search&start=1&rendition=xarticleimage&inmylist=false&urn=urn%3Aproquest%3AUS%3BPQDOC%3BHNP%3BPQD%3BH NP%3BPROD%3Bx-articleimage%3B116244748&mylisturn=urn%3Aproquest%3AUS%3BPQDOC%3BHNP%3BPQD%3BHNP%3BPRO D%3 (accessed December 13, 2012).

William N. Wallace is the author of this New York Times article that was written and published on December 7th, 1991. it was published as a main story on the front page and it was intended for everyone to read. During this time, it was the 50th anniversary of the tragic attack on Pearl Harbor, an attack that changed the outcome of World War II a great deal. Survivors of the attack were gathered at the annual Army vs. Navy football game, being honored by all of their fellow service men and women. The survivors, too, were once in the stands watched the game as young cadets. The main idea of this document is to show how Pearl Harbor is remembered still to this day, although many of the people in this country were not alive during the attack. To back this up, Wallace shows how the veterans were thanked by everyone in the crowd during the halftime ceremony. The bias of this author is that he did not include the survivors reactions, whether they were emotional or happy, during the ceremony so readers do not know the information about how they felt. This article was used to help understand the long term effects of the attack.

World History: The Modern Era. "Second Industrial Revolution," accessed January 21, 2013. http://worldhistory.abc-clio.com/.

In this detailed explanation of the "Second Industrial Revolution" of the world, a lot of background history on the economy of Japan is presented. The section of the article that pertains to our project was taken from a book written by Mikio Sumiya, a Japanese historian. The article was compiled together by ABC-Clio. The article goes into detail about how Japan was able to evade colonization by European countries throughout the 19th century and make a name for themselves in industrial manufacturing. The article gives a detailed account of Japan's economic history from the late 1800s until after the second world war. As far as I can see, there is no bias. This helped us understand the source better by giving a more specific explanation of Japan's industrial expansion.