Historical Investigation
Section C-Evaluation of Sources
OPVL # 1
Origin:
This document is a secondary source because the author used many sources to create this document. It was written by David Horner and published by Rosen Publishing in 2010.
Purpose:
The intended audience for this document is people who are interested in learning about World War II in the Pacific. The purpose of this book is to document Japan’s expansion and the war in the Pacific between US and Japan.
Value:
We can verify the content of the document by going to the back of the book and look at the bibliography. The time period described in this piece is roughly between 1939 and 1945. This piece is valuable to historians because the author describes events leading up to the attack and events after the attack. By looking at all the information in the document, I can tell that the author used many different sources to make this document.
Limitation:
The part of the story that we cannot tell from this document is the side of the Japanese. This book is really biased because the author represents the side of the United States in this event. He often compares the US to Japan with facts that make the US look far more superior. For example, the author says “USA made 28.8 million tons of steel while Japan only made 5.8 million tons of steel. Thus the USA it has far more superior strength than Japan”. For that reason, I believe that this piece is a controversy due to the fact that the author didn’t state both sides of the argument such as that Japan had a bigger army and half the population of the
OPVL # 1
Origin:
This document is a secondary source because the author used many sources to create this document. It was written by David Horner and published by Rosen Publishing in 2010.
Purpose:
The intended audience for this document is people who are interested in learning about World War II in the Pacific. The purpose of this book is to document Japan’s expansion and the war in the Pacific between US and Japan.
Value:
We can verify the content of the document by going to the back of the book and look at the bibliography. The time period described in this piece is roughly between 1939 and 1945. This piece is valuable to historians because the author describes events leading up to the attack and events after the attack. By looking at all the information in the document, I can tell that the author used many different sources to make this document.
Limitation:
The part of the story that we cannot tell from this document is the side of the Japanese. This book is really biased because the author represents the side of the United States in this event. He often compares the US to Japan with facts that make the US look far more superior. For example, the author says “USA made 28.8 million tons of steel while Japan only made 5.8 million tons of steel. Thus the USA it has far more superior strength than Japan”. For that reason, I believe that this piece is a controversy due to the fact that the author didn’t state both sides of the argument such as that Japan had a bigger army and half the population of the