People often place a great reliance on sources to "prove" their views. To do that is to misunderstand sources - and to completely neglect what I can only call common sense.

For example, today I heard, once again,  the speech by Roosevelt in  response to the Japanese surprise attack Dec 7, 1941. Ot cpnjured up all that was implied this "day of infamy" - good guys, bad guys, good, evil - with all the hints of racism, of Japanese natural cruely and deception (slanty eyes) and American purity.

That's a source. And surely a respectable one.

There are other sources, also respectable, claiming that Roosvelt wanted a war with Japan, set it up, rejected any attempts by Japan to discuss the issue before Dec. 7. He wanted a war, but wanted Japan to make the first move.

So - which source is proof?

The answer is neither. To come to a decision you need something else - the "big picture".

It all really began when Japan launched a surprise attack on Port Arthur to open a war with Russia. (American newspapers of the time called the suprise attack clever. No, I don't have the source handy. I read those papers long ago while doing research.)

The US, alarmed that a victory for either country would be a threat to the American ambition to grab a large share of Asian trade - the US had just conquered The Phillipines to give it a foothold in Asia. So it put pressure on both sides to end the war. The war was ended. But from 1904, Japan had made itself a threat to US influence and market domination.

Then check naval building after Word War 1.

British naval ships, for the most part, were designed for use in the North Sea and the Mediterranean - which meant relatively short range. As well, British aircraft carriers were designed with armoured decks because they would often have to operate close to enemy land-based aircrat which would normally overhwelm a carrier's aircraft. The armoured deck meant that the ship could not have a hold high enough to hold a large number of aircrat. With armoured decks, the top weight would have made the ship unmanageable. The British also built relatively few supply ships because most of their use would be within range of British or Imperial ports. Then check US naval construction.

American ships were designed to operate over the wide spaces of the Pacific.. They had very long range because ports would be few and far apart. The US also built large numbers of long range supply ships to resupply the fleet at sea.

American carriers, too, were long range. But they could be built a deck higher, carrying more aircraft than the British ones did. That was because the American carrier decks were not armoured. Less topweight. They thought they could afford to downgrade armour because they would largely be in open sea, far from enemy airfields.  (That proved to be a bad idea.)

The British navy was designed to protect Britain and to maintain access to the Suez canal.

The US navy was designed to establish American dominance in the Pacific. And the only Asian country with a significant fleet was Japan.

Put sources together, and it's obvious Roosevelt wanted a war. As the US has often been, he badly miscaculated the length and human cost of that war - and did not foresee it would create today's China. But the bad guy in this case was Roosevelt.

Anyway, to kill the racist implications of Roosevelt's speech. The US has dozens of times used surprise attacks to start wars. No country or "race" has a monopoly on goodness.

But it's not possible to understand what happened simmply from sources. You need the bigger picture - and common sense.